How Race Impacts Physical Injuries and Psychological Distress

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Laws are implemented to create structure and order in the community so that

people will respect individual boundaries. However, prejudice and mistreatment of others

due to culture, race, religion, and other factors have been a part of society for centuries.

Acts such as lynching were once considered examples of bigotry but are now classified as

hate crimes (Jenness & Grattet, 2001). When considering traditional crime, there must be

a perpetrator, criminal act (actus rea), and motive or intention (mens rea), and causation

and concurrence (Pollock, 2013) may be a factor when administering punishment. Crime

in and of itself can be traumatic and present fear in the victim. However, the

psychological aspects of a hate crime are more profound than those of traditional crime

because the victim is selected because of their real or perceived membership defined by

race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, ethnicity/nationality, disability,

or political affiliation (Stotzer, 2007). Hate crimes send a message of inferiority to the

victim as well as other members of the group (Kauppinen, 2015), and if not for the group

affiliation, the crime would not have occurred. However, creating a universal concept of

hate crime can be difficult (Garland & Chakraborti, 2012). Therefore, introducing penalty

enhancement may impose a challenge when deciding what offenses should be suitable for

hate crime legislation (Brax & Munthe, 2015).

In this study, the research questions focused on the role that race played in

determining the extent of injuries and psychological distress experienced by the victims

of hate crimes. The potential for positive social change is to gain a more in-depth

knowledge of the research questions and provide statistical data that can support the

prosecution of hate crime offenses as well as administering the advance penalty

associated with the hate crime legislation. The theoretical framework for this study

included the social dominance theory (Sidanius et al. 2004). The study used ex post facto

data from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR,

2016). Chapter 1 provided an introduction to the study. Chapter 2 of the study provided a

summary of scholarly articles and outlines similar themes and gaps in research. Chapter 3

explained the research design and methodology. Chapter 4 presented the results of the

study, and Chapter 5 included a discussion, conclusion, and recommendations.

Background

A hate crime occurs when individuals are discriminated against because of their

membership in a protected group (e.g., based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) or

for participating in the federally protected activity (United States Department of Justice,

2008). In 1964 the Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. Section 245 (b)(2) was enacted

and became the first law to address hate crimes. The law outlined six protected activities

that, if violated, constituted a hate crime. The six activities include (a) attending school,

(b) applying for jobs, (c) using any facility of interstate commerce, (d) participating in

public activities, (e) patronizing a public/facility, or (f) voting, or serving as a juror.

In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was passed, which

required stricter penalties be imposed for hate crimes. However, the bill included

individuals in the protected group only when they were participating in one of the six

federally protected activities when the violation occurred. Therefore, if a person was

walking through the neighborhood, washing their car, or taking out the garbage, they

were not protected if they were victims of a hate crime.

Additionally, the desecration laws identify places of worship, as well as

cemeteries, public monuments, and national flags where acts of vandalism occur. The

state desecration law and the federal church arson law defined religious congregations as

victims of hate crimes; however, the federal statute failed to specify the types of victims

and focused mainly on motive as the criteria for hate crimes (Scheitle & Hansmann,

2016). The vandalism may not amount to a hate crime, and the actions of the offender

would determine whether the crime was based on bias against the religion. Also, a

religious-based hate crime outlined in the 1990 statute did not include religious

congregations at all. A religious individual, business, or school could be considered

victims (Scheitle & Hansmann, 2016).

In October 2009, President Obama signed the Matthew Sheppard and James Byrd

Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act. The Hate Crime Act saw the loopholes in sentencing and

protecting other groups from being victims of hate crime. The act also eliminated the

clause stipulating that victims must be participating in a federal protected activity to be

classified as a hate crime, to include all activities. The laws also expanded on which

groups could be classified as a protected group. The expansion included the victim’s

actual or perceived gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

A crime that is motivated by hate is more profound because of the psychological

impact that extends beyond the initial victim. The maliciousness of a hate crime always

involves the identity that defines groups or categories of people (Brudholm, 2015). Also,

group-hate, peer pressure, co-defending, victim-blaming, and people in power who

encourage separation and oppression by social media rants all help to facilitate hate

crime. Although there are hate crime laws in effect that encourage increased penalty for

committing the crime, these crimes are rarely prosecuted under the hate crime statute

(Djarv et al., 2015).

Hate crimes are committed to send a hostile message to an entire group and the

victims are targeted base on prejudices (Brudholm, 2015). The perpetrators can be part of

a political extremist group or members of organized hate groups, and the relationship

between perpetrator and victim can be family, co-workers, or neighbors (Brudholm,

2015). For a crime to be classified as a hate crime, there must be a baseline offense, such

as robbery, assault, vandalism, and so forth. Brudholm (2015) also proposed that the

mental state of the offender is considered when a hate crime is committed. The FBI

classifies three subcategories of hate crime (a) crimes against persons, (b) crimes against

property, and (c) crimes against society: gambling, prostitution, and drug violations

(Cheng et al., 2013).

Card (2001) argued that setting a standard that crime motivated by hate is

misleading and the emphasis should be directed toward what the crime entailed and not

the motivation. This would in turn exclude the idea that a crime is motivated strictly

based on victim’s characteristics. Therefore, the hate crime may not be viewed as being

more psychological damaging and therefore, would not impact the entire protected group.

As such, the notion of hate crime statute would be null and void, and the symbolic cases

of Matthew Sheppard and James Byrd Jr. would have minimal impact on criminal

charges, prosecution, and sentencing.

Any crime, whether robbery, burglary, assault, or murder, has a psychological

impact on the victim. The victim may feel a sense of helplessness that impacts their daily

routine. When conflicting views exist in determining hate crime statute, identifying the

protected group, prosecution, and severity of punishment, hate crime may continue to rise

with very little impact on the perpetrator but will add insult to injury for the victim.

Problem Statement

There is a problem in society when people are victimized, harassed, and assaulted

based on their race, religion, or sexuality. Crimes committed due to biases are classified

as hate crimes and send a message that the subordinate group members (Cheng et al.,

2013) are not accepted and should be treated differently. Understanding and accepting

people from different backgrounds may be difficult when the dominant group feels they

are losing their privileged status. Those who are members of multiple protected groups

(e.g., gay Black male, Middle Eastern women, or Hispanic bisexual male), may find that

harassment and discrimination are constructed at two different levels, thus making them

more of a target for a hate crime (Ramirez et al., 2018). Differences in beliefs, culture,

race, and so forth are part of the diversity in the community. However, when people lose

sight of the human aspect behind the differences, they begin to dehumanize others, which

reinforces the idea that they are not valued as other members of society (Haslam &

Loughnan, 2014). Therefore, some groups may not feel entitled to equality and

discrimination becomes the norm. As such, it becomes easier to commit hate crimes and

create an environment of hatred and intimidation (Haslam & Loughnan, 2014). Despite

hate crime laws being in effect, states have failed to develop a universal definition of

what constitutes a hate crime (e.g., hate speech, physical violence) and identifying

members of the protected group (i.e., race, religion, sexual orientation, disability). Some

victims may be reluctant to report a hate crime for fear that police will not take them

seriously (Ruback et al., 2015). Also, law enforcement agencies have discretion on

whether to categorize an incident as a hate crime due to organizational or community

pressure (Walfield et al., 2017). Therefore, hate crimes go unreported (Ruback, et al.,

2015) or are improperly categorized (Walfield et al., 2017), and factoring in the

uncertainty of a universal definition (Garland & Chakraborti, 2012) as well as the

exclusion of some people in the protected group (Swiffen, 2018) may ultimately

influence the number of cases that are presented to the prosecutor. As such, the number

of hate crimes are underreported, which will give the illusion that hate crimes do not

occur frequently or are not a severe threat to public safety. Therefore, the idea that bias-

motivated crimes require a stricter penalty will not be supported by statistical data and

will subsequently be insignificant to criminal justice professionals.

The meaningful gap in literature: A review of the literature surrounding hate

crimes focused on crimes against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

community. For example, Bell and Perry (2015) examined the impact of anti-lesbian,

gay, and bisexual hate crimes in the community. Lee (2008), Perkiss, (2013) and Tomei

and Cramer (2016) analyzed the psychological aspect of the gay panic defense, and the

2015 survey on transgender equality (James et al., 2016) reported on the physical

violence perpetrated against transgender people of color.

The existing body of literature focused on hate crimes committed against

members of the lesbian, gay and transgender community. This study filled a gap in

literature by examining other groups such as African Americans, Whites, gay men, Jews,

and Hispanic/Latino’s who were victims of hate crimes. This study further analyzed the

extent of injuries sustained by African Americans as compared to Whites, gay men, Jews,

and Hispanic/Latino’s. Finally, this study analyzed the degree to which victims of racially

motivated crimes experienced depression and anxiety as compared to victims who

perceived ethnicity and gender as the motive for the crime.

Including African Americans, Whites, gay men, Jew, and the Hispanic/Latino population

in the body literature will provide a comprehensive look into the physical and emotional

impact hate crimes have on other members of the community.

Purpose of the Study

For bias-motivated crimes to occur, the perpetrator must have negative

misconceptions of an individual or group based on race, religion, or sexual orientation

(Gruenewald & Allison, 2018). Hate crimes have a more significant impact on the

individual and members of society because it sends a message of inferiority (Kauppinen,

2015). The bias that motivates the criminal offense has both a physical and psychological

component that makes them more harmful than baseline offenses (Stozer, 2007).

However, the extent of injuries received by the victim may be contingent on the alleged

danger of the victim and their threat to society (Powers & Socia, 2019). For example,

African American males are perceived to be more dangerous and more willing to defend

themselves; therefore, they will subsequently receive more injuries (Powers & Socia,

2019). The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the two main factors

surrounding the victims of hate crime, which are physical injuries and psychological

distress. The first research question analyzed the extent to which race vs. other biases

plays in determining the extent of injuries sustained by the victim. The second research

question explored whether victims of racially motivated crimes experienced more

depression and anxiety than victims of other bias crimes. The independent variables were

bias motivators and race; the dependent variables were level of physical injuries, violent

crimes, and emotional impact.

Research Questions

RQ1: To what extent are racially motivated crimes more injurious for African

Americans than for other groups?

RQ2: To what extent are victims of racially motivated crimes more likely to

experience depression and anxiety than are victims of other bias-motivated crimes?

Theoretical Framework

The foundation of social dominance theory rests on the ideology that hierarchy-

attenuation is part of society’s culture and is achieved through group-based oppression

(Sidanius et al., 2004). Group-based hierarchies play a significant role in intergroup

conflicts (Küpper et al., 2010). Individuals in power have material resources, political

clout, personal privileges, and institutional access to influence the preferential treatment

of high-status groups (Küpper et al., 2010). Members of the high-status group are more

likely to support group based-hierarchy than the lower status groups who face

discrimination, are devalued, and are excluded in the housing and employment market

(Küpper et al., 2010). The dominant group is more likely to support prejudices and other

ideologies, beliefs, and attributions that function as legitimizing myths that justify the

existence of group-based hierarchies (Küpper et al., 2010).

Social dominance orientation is the degree to which individuals support group

based-hierarchy and the domination of inferior groups by superior groups (Sidanius &

Pratto, 1999). Social groups are defined by race, ethnicity, cultural background, religion,

gender, education, and socio-economic status (Küpper et al., 2010). The dominant group,

comprising older individuals, men, Whites, and native citizens, are more social-

dominance-oriented than are the low-status groups, who are younger individuals, women,

Blacks, and immigrants (Küpper et al., 2010). Group-based hierarchies are justified using

legitimizing myths by proposing that individuals hold the position they deserve within the

social hierarchy (Küpper et al., 2010). Legitimizing myth offers plausible reasons for

discrimination and unequal distribution (Küpper et al., 2010) and leads to institutional

discrimination and asymmetric behavior as an additional form of discrimination (Sidanius

& Pratto, 1999).

The dominant class or the “in-group” uses discrimination, threats, and physical

violence to keep the subordinate or “out-group” in line. As such, the subservient group

begins to question whether they should travel outside of the parameters that society has

set (e.g., housing, education, etc.) for fear of harassment or assault. Therefore, keeping

the subordinate group in “their place” becomes a way of preserving these privileges for

the dominant or in-group (Sidanius et al., 2004). As such, the subordinate group may

participate in asymmetric behavior as they begin to devalue themselves and self-destruct,

which serves as another form of discrimination (Küpper et al., 2010)

Hierarchies serve the interest of the high-status group because members of this

group are more likely to endorse the social structure (Küpper et al., 2010). As the out-

group begins to move up the social ladder, (e.g., moving into an affluent neighborhood,

attending prestigious college, or membership in an elite social club) resentment within

the in-group begins to fester because they fear they are no longer enjoying the privileges

that were preserved for their class. The idea of losing a desired social status or sharing

that status with someone whom they perceive as unworthy may cause the dominant group

to believe they must protect what they consider as theirs. Pulido (2015) noted that the

desire of the dominant group to protect what they see as theirs or to protect the “white

space” is not attributed to racial animus but is a way of creating the best opportunity for

themselves. However, as the subordinate group begins to enjoy the same privileges as the

dominate group, threats, intimidation, and physical violence may occur as a way of

protecting the “white space” The oppression placed on the subordinate group to remain in

their place subsequently contributes to racial inequality (Pulido, 2015).

The social dominance theory employs two legitimizing myths to justify the group-

based hierarchy (Sidanius et al., 1996). The hierarchy enhancing legitimizing myth

(HELM) uses racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and anti-immigration to justify the

subordinate position of Blacks, women, Jews, and immigrants (Sidanius et al., 1996). The

hierarchy attenuating legitimizing myth (HALM) uses ideologies such as nationalism,

protestant work ethic, free-market liberalism, and socialism (Sidanius et al., 1996).

Hate crimes can serve as a mechanism for protecting the desired class from those

who are viewed as undeserving of the same rights and privileges. Hate crime takes on the

mentality of “us” against “them.” In doing so, fear becomes the driving force of

maintaining the social hierarchy. When a hate crime is committed against an individual, it

also sends a message to all members of that group that they are not worthy of equal

treatment (Sullivan et al., 2016).

Rationale for the Theoretical Framework

Social dominance theory is the appropriate framework for this study because this

theory explains the idea of controlling others through fear, threats, and physical violence.

The theory proposes that prejudices and ideologies function to justify differential

treatment of high and low-status groups (Küpper et al., 2010). The dominant group is

characterized by its disproportionately more significant share of positive social value

(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), and group-based hierarchy is a way to legitimize myths of

stereotypes and beliefs (Pratto et al., 2006). Social order is achieved through social

conditions and laws that protect and maintain the interest of the dominant group. As such,

the criminal justice system can play a role in systematic discrimination (Sidanius &

Pratto, 1999). The accomplishments of Mekhi Johnson, an African American male

accepted into all eight Ivy League Colleges (Richman, 2018), Lori Lightfoot, the first

African American female and openly gay Mayor of Chicago (Spielman, 2019), and

Alberto Gonzales, the first Latino Attorney General (Varela, 2015), provide inspiration to

others and people of color to pursue their dreams. However, the dominant group may see

this as an infringement on their protected space because they must now share the

spotlight with others. As such, the individual orientation that endorses unequal

relationships between groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) contributes to the power and

control that is afforded to the dominant group.

Nature of the Study

For this quantitative, nonexperimental study, I used data for 2016 to answer the

two research questions. The first research question examined the relationship between the

independent variable (race) and the dependent variable (extent of injuries). Cross-

tabulation analysis was used to examine the variables using the Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Data were collected from the ICPSR, Uniform Crime

Reporting Program Data: Hate Crime Data (Record-Type Files), United States 2016,

ICPSR 37060. I also used the ICPSR Codebook to provide a detailed explanation of

scope of the study, subject information, data collection methodology and variable

description. I collected data from The National Crime Victimization Survey for 2016 to

answer the second research question to understand the emotional and psychological

impact of hate crime. The study examined the extent to which victims of racially

motivated crimes (independent variable) experience depression and anxiety vs victims of

other bias-motivated crimes (dependent variables). The study further examined the rate at

which victims of racially motivated crimes experienced residual physical problems, such

as headaches, fatigue, and muscle tension as compared with other victims. Data were

analyzed using SPSS software.

Assumptions

The first assumption regarding this study was that all law enforcement agencies

had the same definition of a hate crime as described by the FBI. The second assumption

was that all hate crimes, bias motivators, and type of victim were identified and properly

coded. The third assumption was that all law enforcement agencies reported all hate

crime incidents. The final assumption of the study was that the raw data were accurate

and up to date.

Scope and Delimitations

The research problem focused on hate crime and how the race and can be an

indicator of the extent of injuries suffered by the victim as well as the emotional impact

of the hate crime. The study used data reported to the FBI from January through

December 2016, which only analyzed 1 year of hate crime incidents. Therefore, the study

may not provide an in-depth assessment of the severity of the problem, and further

research should be conducted to solidify the results.

Threats to Internal Validity

Law enforcement agencies may set different criteria for defining hate crimes.

Missing data and data keyed in incorrectly may alter the total number of hate crime

incidents. Law enforcement agencies may underreport criminal acts to lessen the problem

and victims may fail to report a crime for fear of retaliation.

Limitations

The study used hate crime data reported by law enforcement agencies in 2016.

Therefore, the scope of the study is limited to 1 year. The study used a broad category for

injuries and did not distinguish between major injuries, which resulted in hospitalization

or long-term physical problems such as permanent brain damage, or minor fractures and

bruises. To avoid bias in this study, I analyzed and evaluated only the statistics from the

secondary data. Personal assumptions of hate crimes will be discarded.

Significance

Racial tension, animosity, and hatred have been part of society since the 1930s.

Some may believe that those who are “different” or do not share the same values as the

mainstream society are not entitled to equal treatment and their chance at achieving the

American Dream. Those who “have” are not willing to give up their social standing or

share their space with the “have nots.” (Pulido, 2015). Threats, intimidation, and physical

violence are ways of excluding some while protecting what some believe are rights

exclusively reserved for them (Pulido, 2015).

Before the internet, individuals spread hate through secret meetings, distribution

of flyers, and word of mouth. However, with advancements in technology, social media

platforms, racially motivated video games, and chat rooms, the spread of hate speech has

intensified (Gould, 2019). Hate crime laws were enacted to criminalize acts motivated by

the victim’s identity in a particular group. However, as the diversity of the population

grows, and more and more people are openly expressing their sexuality, those who

oppose differences in the dynamics of the population may find it difficult to cope. The

dominant group may struggle with the idea that everyone is entitled to the same

opportunities; therefore, they may express their opposition through hate crimes based on

the characteristics of the protected group.

This research contributed to the body of knowledge by showing the connection of

race and bias motivators to the injuries sustained and the emotional suffering of the

victims of hate crime in 2016. The study demonstrated the frequency and severity of hate

crimes, thus providing sustenance for penalty enhancement. This research supports

professional practices because research influences policy, policies govern how laws and

regulations are implemented, and laws outline how members of society should be treated

when they are victims of a crime. The possible impact on positive social change is that

racially motivated incidents that existed in the 1930s (e.g., racial inequality, false

accusations on people of color, and police execution of unarmed African American men)

are still present in the year 2020. The study can increase the public’s understanding of

bias-motivated crimes, which can assist in dismantling social injustice and systemic

racism. Although hate crime legislation is in effect, crimes are rarely prosecuted under

this statute (Djary et al., 2015). Therefore, more collaboration between law enforcement,

courts, and community organizations may encourage congruence between diverse

population groups. The study can raise awareness of the need for improved social

services programs that can help victims of hate crime deal with residual factors such as

depression, anxiety, and anger.

Implications for Social Change

Society is forever changing, and the way people interact and how they embrace

diversity will change as well. The results of the study can be used to prompt officials to

create a universal definition of a hate crime (Garland & Chakraborti, 2012). In doing so,

hate crimes can be adequately documented, leading to more accurate crime statistics.

Also, having precise and up-to-date data can influence prosecution to pursue hate crime

charges as well as the enhanced penalty associated with hate crime legislation (Brax &

Munthe, 2015). Enhanced sentencing sends a message that hate crime is not tolerated or

accepted by members of the community (Gerstenfield, 2011). Therefore, individuals,

communities, and members of the protected group can begin to heal and feel a sense of

equality. This study can increase the criminal justice administrators' understanding of

bias-motivated crimes and their impact on members of the targeted group.

Summary

Crime is inevitable and is a constant fixture in society. As the demographics of

the community change, tension and resentment among its members may increase.

However, the way society treats its members can be determined by the way society views

the population (Schneider & Ingram, 1993). Therefore, any change or disruption in the

dynamic of the community may manifest into threats, intimidation, and physical violence

associated with hate crimes. The examination of the literature in Chapter 2 highlights the

symbolic hate crime cases, the psychological impact of hate crime, members of the

protected group, hate speech, and penalty enhancement. The literature also focused on

victim-blaming and how it played a role in reducing offender culpability (Burdholm,

2015).

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 2 provides a synopsis of the literature surrounding hate crime. Through

analysis of the literature, I have identified several main themes, including bias

motivators, schemas, protected group, and the psychological aspect of hate crime.

Underlying themes touched on symbolic cases such as those of Matthew Sheppard and

James Byrd, hate speech, and penalty enhancement. Prior research focused on hate

crimes against members of the gay, lesbian, and transgender community, with a few

studies including race and crimes against property and business. The significance of this

study was to examine the role that race played in the extent of victim injury and the

emotional impact of the crime vs. other bias-motivated crime. The results of the study

may subsequently promote policy change concerning prosecution and penalty

enhancement.

Literature Search Strategy

To locate relevant sources for this literature review, I conducted an online search

using the Walden Library databases: Criminal Justice Database, Sage Journals, EBSCO-

SocIndex, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Forensic Psychology,

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Pro Quest, Science Direct and citation chaining.

Keywords used were hate crime, hate crime and victim, bias, women/females, African

American/blacks, ideology, beliefs, church, bombings, cause, Maryland, vandalism,

business, race, destruction of property, mass shootings, perpetrators, male perpetrators,

hate groups, legal system, criminal justice, property, offender, and theory. Literature was

searched for the years 2015-2019.

Theoretical Foundation

The basis of the social dominance theory is to maintain social order by creating a

divide among groups that allows one group to have authority over another (Küpper et al.,

2010). Dominating others through violence, threats, and intimidation is a way of

maintaining the group-based hierarchies (Küpper et al., 2010). Individuals who have

political power and financial security influence policies and procedures, which can be

used to oppress others. Hierarchies serve the interest of the high-status group because

members of this group are more likely to endorse the social structure (Küpper et al.,

2010).

Rationale for the Theoretical Framework

Social dominance theory is the appropriate framework for this study because hate

crimes help maintain the social order where victims fear challenging the status quo.

Negative images displayed on television and in the movies support stereotypes and lead

to the belief that the mistreatment of others is acceptable (Küpper et al., 2010). Social

order is achieved through social conditions and laws that protect and maintain the interest

of the dominant group. As such, the criminal justice system can play a role in systematic

discrimination that perpetuates hate crimes (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).

Symbolic Cases

Hate crimes can be motivated by religion, national origin, sexual orientation, race,

and disability. However, the two cases that are most recognizable when speaking of hate

crime focus on race and sexual orientation. The Matthew Sheppard case was one of the

first cases that explored the notion of hate crimes versus traditional offending (murder).

The evidence revealed that Matthew Sheppard’s sexual orientation was the sole purpose

for the crime. On October 6, 1998, while visiting a gay bar, Matthew Sheppard, a gay

man, was approached by two men posing to be gay in order to strike up a friendship. The

three socialized and later left the bar. Matthew Sheppard was driven to a remote area,

pistol-whipped, beaten, and tied to a fence. He was later found by a cyclist and

subsequently died from his injuries and exposure to extreme weather conditions (Ott &

Aoki, 2002).

The James Byrd Jr. case also demonstrates the extent a person will go when

motivated by hatred. However, this killing was racially motivated. On June 7, 1998,

James Byrd Jr., an African American man, was walking home when three white

supremacists approached him. James Byrd Jr. was kidnapped, driven out of town to a

wooded area, beaten, and tied to a truck. The men drove the truck a few miles causing

massive head injuries to James Byrd (Thorneycroft & Asquith, 2017). His body was later

discovered in front of an African American Church.

In both the Matthew Sheppard and James Byrd Jr. cases, crimes were committed

because of the perpetrator’s hatred or bias against members of the targeted group (Brax,

2016). In October 2009, President Obama signed the Matthew Sheppard and James Byrd

Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act. The law expanded on which groups could be classified as

a protected group. The expansion included the victim’s actual or perceived gender

identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

Psychological Aspect of Hate Crimes

Hate is a complex phenomenon that is not easily understood or researched in the

field of psychology (Fischer et al., 2018). Hate and hate crimes can be influenced by

many factors, such as family upbringing, lived experienced, social media, hate speech,

group or peer pressure, and hate spin. Having multiple influences can trigger actions

within the offender, which they then use to justify their actions. Social science

professionals have argued that hate is not a standard emotion, and what makes hate

different is that it is infused with other negative emotions, intense feelings (Fischer et al.,

2018), and emotivational goals (Roseman et al., 1994). The emotionavional goals are

what the emotion tries to bring (e.g., violence, fear, etc.). Therefore, it is the driving force

of the emotional experience (Roseman et al., 1994). Fischer et al. (2018) suggested that

when individuals experience hate, they view their targets as having malicious intent and

being immoral. The goals of hate crime can be intimidation, mental abuse, fear, or

physical harm. The emotivational goal of hate will be different depending on the reason

the offender has developed hatred (Fischer et al., 2018). When considering motives and

victims, Powers and Socia (2019) argued that the offender’s mindset is geared towards

the adversary effect, in which an offender selects a victim based on the perceived

dangerousness of the victim. This reason for hate can stem from a fear of losing resources

such as housing or education or losing a job. Victims who are considered part of the out-

group are selected to discourage upward mobility or interaction with members of the in-

group.

Hate can have a short-term effect called “immediate hate,” which occurs when a

significant event has led to hatred and a strong desire for revenge (Fischer et al., 2018), or

the long-term effects that occur long after the initial incident. The long-term effects of

hate crime can include anxiety, depression, and stress. Victims may also need time to

heal from physical wounds, some of which may be permanent, such as a missing limb or

permanent scars. The hate incident may cause the victim to experience distrust of others

due to the motive behind the crime.

When examining bias motivators, Levin and McDevitt (1993) suggested that the

typology of hate crime will provide a better understanding of the motivation behind

offending. The typology of hate, first introduced in 1993, consists of two factors (a)

thrill-motivated and (b) defense-motivated hate crime. Both thrill-motivated and defense-

motivated hate crimes are driven by the same objective, and that is to gain a sense of

power and dominance. However, thrill-motivated hate crimes are usually committed by

groups of idle teenagers or young adults who look for someone to assault. The teenagers

or young adults begin to participate in group bonding (Levin & Reichelmann, 2015) to

gain a sense of superiority as they commit criminal acts with their peers. The crimes are

used as a way to make the victim appear less than human. At the same time, the

perpetrator feels inferior because they have created a situation where they have power

and control, not as an individual, but as a group. For the offender, victimizing a person

will boost the idea that they are superior. Therefore, in the eyes of the group-offenders,

each individual is more powerful and accepted by the group (Levin & Reichelmann,

2015). The defense-motivated hate crimes are revenge type crimes where the dominant

group perceives the subordinate group as presenting a danger to their power or prestige

(Levin & Reichelmann, 2015).

The group-based emotion stems from the hatred of an individual, which is

transferred to members of the entire group (Fischer et al., 2018). Subsequently, the

characteristics of the out-group become more noticeable than any act they committed

(Fischer et al., 2018). Generalizing the characteristics of the out-group becomes the

catalyst on which all members of the out-group are measured. There is no distinction

amongst the individual group members; therefore, group-hate continues to spread.

When spreading hate, racial slurs are often used as a way to create and maintain

unjust power over the victim (Popa-Wyatt & Wyatt, 2018). Racial slurs contribute the

oppression of others in that (a) the slurs permit others to voice their disapproval of the

outgroup, (b) the slurs show others what they (the bigot) can have by merely uttering

hateful words, and (c) slurs have perlocutionary effects on the victim (Popa-Wyatt &

Wyatt, 2018).

Racial tension, individual and group offending, along with the short- and long-

term effects of hate create an atmosphere of continual fear of victimization. Individuals

targeted because of their differences experience a plethora of emotions that often cut to

the core of their identity (Awan & Zempi, 2018). A hate crime can have a lasting effect

on the individual as well as other members of the protected group. The residual effects of

hate crime spread across several venues (individual, family, protected group,

neighborhood, and other cities). When the continuing effect of hate crime impacts several

venues, this is known as collective trauma (Hirschberger, 2018). Collective trauma is a

traumatic event that distresses an entire society. The suffering persists beyond the lives of

the immediate survivors and leaves a negative impression for their descendants. The

future generations have not experienced the hate crime directly (Hirschberger, 2018);

however, they are affected and influenced by the historical events that linger on for years.

Collective trauma has a psychological impact because it reminds the present generations

that past events (e.g., racism, hate crimes, lynching, etc.) can still occur today. Collective

trauma contributes to the idea of maintaining a social hierarchy because the perpetrators

will deny or downplay the event (Hirschberger, 2018) to justify their actions. Members of

the subordinate group begin to fear being victimized by others (Hoffman, 2017), even

though all members of the dominant group have not participated in the hate crime.

Hate crimes can also be systematically marginalized and made invisible by

institutions such as the criminal justice system, social service, labor market, and the

media, all of which can shape the hierarchical power that governs society (Collins, 2015).

Marginalizing the experiences of a group gives power to the oppressor because they are

aware that hate crimes are illegal. However, they have the support of government

agencies who validate racism in policing and the court system, which rarely prosecutes

crimes under the hate crime statute (Djarv et al., 2015). When the criminal justice system

denies the severity of hate crimes, it has a devasting impact on the victim/family as well

as the community. For example, Ahmaud Arbery, a 25 year-old African American male,

was jogging through the neighborhood in Brunswick, Georgia. Two White males (father

and son), assumed Ahmaud was a robbery suspect, grabbed their weapons, got in their

truck along with their neighbor and began to chase Ahmaud. The White males

approached Ahmaud, shot and killed him, and later stated that it was in self-defense

because Ahmaud resisted a citizen’s arrest. The neighbor who followed the father and son

recorded the incident, which took place in February 2020. The videotape was turned over

to the police and prosecutor’s office. However, both agencies denied that a crime was

committed, and stated the father and son were justified in killing Ahmaud Arbery. The

video was leaked to the public in May 2020. When individuals have a high

dehumanization value (like the father and son), they have increased justification for

committing violence (Mekawi et al., 2016). The men were subsequently arrested;

however, Georgia does not have a hate crime law.

To further understand the thought process of committing a hate crime, social

scientist (Shihui et al. 2013) explain how the interaction between culture and human brain

function (cultural neuroscience) work within the socio-culture contexts (institutional

racism) to influence human function and behavior. Cultural neuroscience can provide

insight into the brain functioning process associated with racially based fears among

individuals who encounter African American males. At the same time, some may

question what attitude of the “hate” aspect of the crime should rise to the level of a hate

crime (Kaupinnen, 2015), and there should not be an enhanced penalty for hate crimes

versus other baseline offenses. However, hate crimes are meant to dehumanize an aspect

of humanity and seen as out-group derogation (Haslam & Loughnan, 2014). With

institutional racism and some states (Georgia) not having hate crime legislation, cultural

victimization is ever-present (Garland & Chakraborti,2012).

People with multiple stigmatized identities face discrimination and hatred, unlike

that of individuals with a single minority identity (Ramirez et al., 2018). In a 2015

transgender equality survey, James et al. (2016) reported that people who belong to

multiple groups such as transgender people of color are more at risk for physical

violence, sexual assaults, and harassment within the judicial system. The transgender

population reported having negative experiences with healthcare providers who refused

treatment because of their sexuality. As such, they failed to maintain doctor’s

appointments or seek assistance from medical providers, which created further medical

complications. Transgender people who are disabled faced economic hardship because

they were refused access to public assistance programs and food stamps. Others reported

being denied access to public restroom or were questioned when they entered the

restroom. Therefore, they refused to eat when in public, and if they did, they would often

forego using the restroom, which some reported resulted in kidney-related problems and

urinary tract infections. When traveling by plane, TSA agents humiliated them, made fun

of their names vs. sexuality identity. Transgender women experienced negative

experiences in domestic violence shelters. Others faced heterosexual discrimination by

members of their own race; therefore, they believe there is no safe place for transgender

people of color, and they often feel isolated within their communities. Some transgender

people had to distance themselves from family and friends because of the lack of support

and understanding of their identities as well as their experiences (Ramirez et al., 2018).

To cope with the discrimination and pressure of being part of two out-groups, transgender

people of color would sometimes hide or fail to disclose their identities (Ramirez et al.,

2018). This type of passive coping (Ramirez et al., 2018) could lead to depression,

anxiety, and possible abuse of drugs and alcohol for not being able to be who are in a

society without discrimination. Society is conditioned to believe in heterosexism and

gender roles as either male or female (Bell & Perry, 2015). People become fixated on

gender roles such as a rough and rugged image for males and docile for females. Boys are

neutered at an early age that real men don’t cry, females shouldn’t swear, and specific

jobs (police officer, firefighter) are reserved for men. People buy into what society has

identified as the correct roles for both males and females, and any deviation from the

rules is problematic. However, it is estimated that 29% of the American gay population

lives in states that offer no legal protection against hate crimes (Movement Advancement

Project, 2015).

The psychological impact of hate crimes can have collateral damage as well.

Humans, communities, as well as business, can fall prey to the effects of hate crime. It is

reported that the number of minority-owned business decline as hate crime increases,

regardless of ownership (Geisler et al., 2019). In a 2014 study conducted by The National

Minority Supplier Development, of the 12,000 minority-owned businesses, they

generated an upwards of $401 billion of output per year, which is equivalent to $1 billion

per day, created 2.2 million jobs, paid more than $53 billion in salaries, and $40 billion in

federal taxes. Hate crime undermines the idea of inclusion, equality, and trust of

humanity (Pezella & Fetzer, 2017). Continued separation and distrust only contribute to

the unequal balance in which group interaction will never be accomplished.

Protected Groups

Traditional protected groups included groups that have had a history of being

oppressed (Mellgren, 2016). However, being disadvantaged in some way is the criteria

for a group being selected for protection (Al-Hakim, 2015). Hate crime legislation

usually includes race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, and gender

identity. There has been some about debate whether disabled people should be included

in the protected group (Siebers, 2008) since crimes committed against the disabled are

viewed as crimes of opportunity rather than a crime based on bias (Thorneycroft &

Asquith, 2015). However, the disabled population is part of the disadvantaged group who

has had a history of oppression. People with disabilities experience harassment and the

stigma of being different from their peers (Albhaboy et al., 2016). Advancements in

technology such as the internet have created an “online” environment where vulnerable

people such as the disabled are exposed to online harassment known as cyber harassment

(Wells & Mitchell, 2014). The exclusion of any group that has a history of oppression

may create secondary victimization in the broader community (Swiffen, 2018). However,

Gerstenfeld (2013) argues that sexual orientation is a choice and, therefore, should not be

included as a protected group.

The National Coalition for the Homeless argues that homeless people should be

included in hate crime statues because of the prejudice and stereotypes against them and

the roles that bias plays in their attack (Levin, 2015). Stoops (2014) also advocates for the

inclusion of the homeless in hate crime laws because of the (a) significant risk for

additional violence and victimization, (b) discriminatory selection, (c) oppression and

prejudice against them as a socially identifiable class, (d) identical offenders such as

bigoted skinheads, neighborhood defenders protecting their turf, and young male thrill

offenders who share identifiable characteristics and motivations, (e) identical methods of

attack that revolve around personal or imprecise weapons, and (f) frequent hostile or

ineffective legal response to protect them.

Homeless people are seen as disposable people who are legitimate targets for

victimization (Levin, 2015). In 2015, there were over 30,000 results on YouTube for the

phrase “Bumfights,” which videotape individuals assaulting and robbing homeless people

in the community. Sexist hate speech and social shaming are used to disrespect women

and to depict violence against them as acceptable (Chetty & Alathur, 2018). Women of

color are more vulnerable to become victims of bias-motivated crimes than White women

(Perry 2014). The homeless population and women are the only two groups in society

where violence marked against them is seen at entertainment (Levin, 2015).

In 2016, Baton Rouge, Louisiana became the first state to pass bill HB953 to

include attacks on police officers as hate crimes. Police officers are not marginalized nor

disadvantaged but are a stigmatized group that may qualify them for membership in the

protected group (Huey & Broll, 2015). Because of the work they do, their job can be

classified as “dirty work,” thus making them targets by members of their community

(Huey & Broll, 2015). Some groups may openly express their hostility for police officers,

which may result in seeking them out for crime (Mawby & Irene, 2016). However, police

are not part of the protected group because other vulnerable groups experience intimation

and harassment (Mawby & Irene, 2016). Also, police are not viewed as the ideal victim

of a hate crime because they possess power and privileges that excludes them from the

protected group (Mawby & Irene, 2016).

Victim Blaming

Victims are often blamed for contributing to their fate as a way to divert attention

away from the offender’s misdeeds. Defense attorney’s attempt to pinpoint something the

victim had allegedly done (prior arrest record, the victim looks suspicious, etc.) as a way

to show how they caused the situation to unfold (being shot, killed, or physical assault).

Victim blaming is a way of reinforcing a social hierarchy (Sidanius et al., 2004) because

it sends two different messages regarding the same offense. Although it is against the law

to kill someone, killing an unarmed African American male, jogging through the

neighborhood, who refuse to comply with a citizen’s arrest is justified. People take a

different stance when considering the victim’s status and view the events as killing

innocent people vs. killing “unworthy” people (Jones, 2017).

Victim blaming can be viewed through the lens of the social construction

framework (Schneider & Ingram, 1993), where groups are identified as either the (a)

advantaged, power and positive construct (b) contenders, have political power but

negative construct and (b) deviants have neither power nor positive construct. The gay

and lesbian community is an example of the deviant/negative population because they are

subjected to manipulation by courts and policymakers (Schneider & Ingram, 1993).

Policies send a message to a population on how they are viewed and how they should

expect to be treated by the legal system (Schneider & Ingram, 1993). The victim must be

viewed as an undeserving victim (Burdholm, 2015) to justify any unwarranted criminal

act perpetrated against them. Derogating the victim transcends to discrediting the entire

group and implies justification but can also persuade racial prejudices among bystanders

(Sullivan et al., 2016).

The terrorem effect of hate crime is intended to instill intimidation in the group by

victimizing a few members of that group (Perry & Alvi, 2011). The criminal act speaks to

the broader community which solidifies the concept of “us versus them” (Perry & Alvi,

2011). The terrorem effect can be successful in keeping people in their place by (a) shock

(b) anger, (c) fear/vulnerability, and (d) inferiority.

The attitudes surrounding the crime after the fact can also shift blame (Jones,

2017). When media focuses on people of color, they are dehumanized (Dukes, 2017), and

the attention is on what the victim did wrong to cause the problem. Media may present a

story in a way that is (a) fixated on the victim’s past, (b) focus on the victim’s physical

composition, (c) location where the victim was killed, (d) and negative stereotypical

elements of the victim’s lifestyle (Dukes & Gaither, 2017). For example, following James

Byrd Jr.’s funeral, little was mentioned about him other than his past criminal record,

which may not have presented him as innocent or blameless in his own death. Victim

blaming paints a picture that the victim is more at fault when victims are described in a

negative, stereotypical way (Jones, 2017).

Racist hate crimes extend to all areas in the community to include college

campuses. In a study completed by Stotzer and Hossellman (2012), they reported that

college campuses with fewer African American and Latino students are more likely to

report hate crimes. Hate crime on college campuses can be attributed to two theories (a)

ethnic competition and (b) defended neighborhood theory (VanDyke & Tester, 2014).

Ethnic competition occurs when students begin to compete for scholarships and other

resources, and when students experience a financial strain (VanDyke & Tester, 2014). As

such, hate crime can be a way of reducing competition from minorities (VanDyke &

Tester, 2014). The defended neighborhood theory can occur when a group wants to

protect their neighborhood (college campuses) from the intrusion of minorities (VanDyke

& Tester, 2014). The defended neighbor theory explains how groups maintain their

identity as well as living space. Cultural biases may lead White students attending a

predominantly white college campus to buy into the notion that their college is a “White

Space” (VanDyke & Tester, 2014) and they must defend their space against the “out-

group,” through threats and violence (Legewie & Schaffer, 2016). The dominant group

may feel a loss of control and power when subordinate groups infringe on their social

position and space. As minority enrollment increases, this imposes a more significant

threat; therefore, more violence will occur. Some may view the concept of “White Space”

in association with white privilege where individual decisions of Whites are not

necessarily driven by racial animus, but as a means to create the best opportunity for

themselves, however, it subsequently contributes to racial inequality (Pulido, 2015).

Educators and social workers created the “teach-in” model to address racial

incidents and to promote diversity awareness on college campuses. The Teach-Ins were

first used in the 1960s as a way for students and faculty to protest the Vietnam War

(Sahlins, 2009). However, the National Association of Social Work (2017), reintroduced

the Teach-Ins in 2017 to promote divisive communities and advocate for those who feel

threatened by the increasing minority population on campus (Tower et al., 2019). Teach-

Ins work with student’s skillsets to promote change by participating in self-reflective

exercises and discussion on ways to respond positively to divisive action and to avoid

aggression, (Tower et al., 2019). The Teach-Ins also incorporates moral and social

psychological aspects (Tower et al. 2019). Haidt, (2012) introduced the moral foundation

theory to describe five moral impulses (a) care/harm, (b) fairness/cheating, (c)

loyalty/betrayal, (d) authority/subversion, and (e) sanctity/degradation. The five moral

impulses are essential in understanding hate crime motivations because humans make

decisions based on intuition and emotions, rather than evidence and facts. Hate crime

motivators can include (a) threats to ethnic or racial status, (b) threats to gender status, (c)

threats to heterosexual status, and (b) threats to economic status (Blazak, 2001). The

commission of a hate crime begins with individual emotions, and emotions are influenced

by schemas, negative stereotypes, and fear of a particular group’s characteristics. Having

an entirely bleak narrative of a person without any positive factors to balance their

perception makes it easier to justify hate incident.

The gay panic defense is a provocation defense to show that the perpetrator was

pivoted by the action of the victim (Salerno et al., 2015). It sets the stage for biases and

explains why the victim should bear some of the responsibility. The provocation defense

ultimately causes jurors to rely on the preconceived biases of what gay people represent.

Stereotypes cause jurors to pass judgment on the victim and can impact the outcome of

the trial (Salerno et al., 2015). When the gay panic defense is allowed, it sends a message

to the community that the mistreatment of members of the gay community is permitted.

However, Lee (2008) counteracts that and points out that if the gay panic defense is

banned as a legal defense, attorneys will try another approach to trigger a juror’s biases.

And the jurors will find it difficult to separate facts from preconceived biases. However,

without a defense, even a bias defense such as the gay panic defense, may be viewed as a

violation of freedom of speech may leave room for an appeal (Lee, 2008).

The gay panic defense is used when a heterosexual individual commits a violent

crime against a nonviolent gay man who has made sexual advances (Perkiss, 2010). The

argument was used in the legal case of People vs. Rodriguez (1967) when Rodriguez pled

temporary insanity because he feared a gay man would molest him. The jury denied the

insanity defense and found Rodriguez guilty of second-degree murder. At the same time,

the gay panic defense gives the impression that gay men are operating against God’s will,

and any violence perpetrated against them is God’s will (Baron, 2016). The gay panic

defense places blame on the victim because of their sexuality; therefore, excusing the

offender and implying that his actions were justifiable.

In September 2014, California governor signed into law a bill banning the gay and

trans panic defense in all murder and assault trials (Assembly Bill No. 2501, 2014 Paulat,

2014). Although the gay panic defense was banned in 2014, people’s attitudes will not

change overnight. The law and the beliefs that supported it were in effect for more than

50 years, and the ban is relatively recent. The offender doesn’t hate the victim because

the victim has personally harmed them, but the hate stems from what the offender thinks

of victim or what they take the victim to be (Brudholm, 2015). Therefore, it may take

centuries to undo the stereotypical thinking that supported this law.

Hate incidents can be perpetrated by an individual or in a group setting. When a

group commits a crime, the violence is more severe. The five factors related to extreme

group violence are (a) life struggles, (b) culture, (c) unhealed trauma, (d) bystander

effect, and (e) personality traits (Staub, 2013). As life struggles such as poverty, poor

physical and socioemotional health (Hoffman, 2017) takes its toll, individuals feel others

are obtaining more than the privileged population. The issue of who is entitled to what

becomes more demanding and people may resort to violence to maintain the status quo.

However, the threat is perceived rather than an actual threat (Stephan & Stephan, 2000).

For example, the failing economy can be blamed on illegal immigrants or minorities

taking jobs. The cultural belief system of family and community impacts how people

think, treat others, and respond to diversity (Hoffman, 2017). However, some values and

beliefs passed down through the generations may help perpetuate biases.

The extent of violence in a group setting can be determined by the (a) number of

offenders, (b) victim-offender relationship, (c) weapons used, and (d) location

(Gruenewald & Allison, 2018). The number of offenders involved in a hate crime

incident determines and shapes the violence committed against the victim. Group

members may often compete against one another to see who can outdo the other or

administer the most harm to the victim. Some members may up the stakes because they

want to “save face” (Gruenewald & Allison, 2018), to show they are worthy of being part

of the “in-group.” When their position is challenged, the dominant group may not view a

non-violent approach as an option to solve a conflict (Gruenewald & Allison, 2018). The

victim-offender relationship sends messages to the “out-group” that they occupy an

inferior place in society (Gruenewald & Allison, 2018). The message sends fear to the

“out-group” that if they attempt to earn the same status as the “in-group,” make strides to

gain a dominate position or privileged status, violence will be bestowed on them as an

individual, as well as all who are perceived to be part of the group. The bias offenders

often target people unknown to them, but the motive is to demonize the out-group

(Gruenewald & Allison, 2018).

Bias offenders rely on weapons that form a more intimate contact with the

victims, such as knives (Gruenewald & Allison, 2018). The method of instilling fear is to

be up close and personal to make sure the offender knows who is inflicting pain. The

suffering and pain of the victim may be fulfilling, and the offender may find gratification

seeing the victims fighting for their lives. Inflicting pain and knowing the victims are

unable to defend themselves will also give a sense of superiority. Also, spewing racial

slurs and degrading acts as having the crawl or beg for life demonstrate who is in control.

Finally, hate crimes usually occur in public so that others can witness the violence, and

illustrate how the in-group has violated social norms (Gruenwald & Allison, 2018). When

crimes are committed in a public setting, people can see the aftermath of hate crime

(blood on the sidewalk, crime scene tape, graffiti, memorials, etc.) as they pass the

location on their way to work, school, or shopping. The lingering effects of the crimes are

intended to infiltrate the neighborhood and make those who have not been physically

harmed, take a second look at whether they should move out of the area, defer from

attending their favorite nightclub, or take precautions when leaving the socially

constructed boundaries (Gruenwald & Allison, 2018). Hate displayed in public may

motivate others to harass or intimidate or violence against the group (Seglow, 2016).

Devaluating humans creates situations where newer groups become the focus of

hate (Hoffman, 2017). Hatred is not only experienced in the communities but seen in the

political arena as well. Comments such as “Make America Great Again”, “Build Bigger

Walls”, minorities are the cause for the increase in crime (Green & Merle, 2013) or

referring to Mexican immigrants as rapist who brought crime into the United States (Bell,

2019) are examples of hate spin (George, 2017). Hate spin occurs when political leaders

use manufactured indignations to create the illusion that a particular group is the cause

for social problems, and the rest of the nation should rally together against that opponent.

Victims are targeted for who they are and not for what they have done (Fischer et al.,

2018). Several months following the 2016 presidential election, there were 1,000 bias-

related incidents, including over 300 anti-immigrant hate incidents, over 200 anti-black

hate incidents, over 100 anti-Muslim hate incidents, and over 100 anti-LGBT incidents

(Southern Poverty Law Center, 2017).

Hate Speech Versus Freedom of Speech

Derogatory language and symbolic expression of hate (Kauppinen, 2015), such as

cross burnings, and swastikas (Jendryke & McClure, 2019) are indicators of bias (Harris

& Ulmer, 2017). There is a thin line between offensive language and the person’s right to

voice their opinion. However, there is the question of whether any bans on hate speech

violates freedom of speech. Since there are no restrictions or laws against hate speech

(Swiffen, 2018), people may spread hate messages as they desire. With advancements in

technology, the internet is used to spread the word faster while reaching a broader

audience. Hate speech may influence a person’s thinking in a way that supports social

inequality; therefore, giving a foundation to the social hierarchies (Simpson, 2018) as an

acceptable social norm. Hate groups use the internet to share and discuss common

viewpoints, promote racial superiority, post and repos hate messages, and recruiting

(Seglow, 2016). The interaction of group members may encourage peer pressure and

cause an impetuous person to act on their emotions (Cohen-Almagor, 2018). When like-

minded individuals meet and interact, they form toxic relationships that can extend to

individuals at the national level.

Being part of a group increases the extent of injury to the victim (McGloin &

Rowan, 2015), and individuals with lower thresholds of violence will need the support of

the group to participate in a criminal act (McGloin & Rowan, 2015). Similar to peer

pressure, group influences encourage bad behavior, and members will perpetuate crime to

gain acceptance. Therefore, violence escalates not due to bias but due to group influence

(Lantz & Kim, 2019). Group offending promotes the diffusion of responsibility and

anonymity (Lantz, 2018), and it becomes easier to blame other members of the group.

Individuals may privately brag to other members the extent of injury imposed on the

victim. However, when criminal charges are filed, diffusion of responsibility makes it

easier to place blame on others, and the offender will accept liability for the lesser

offense.

Anonymity allows people to hide behind the crowd to deter detection as being

part of the crime. It also gives members the courage to behave in a way they would not

engage in if they were alone (Lants, 2018). Those with the lowest propensities for

violence will rely on the group to incite participation in crime (McGloin & Rowan,

2015). People will mimic the behavior of others, and the support of the group gives

individual members power. Groups are more violent because of the collective actions and

the social learning process (Lantz, 2018) created by group interaction. However, until the

offender acts on their hatred, there is no motive or intent to harm, merely undesired

speech (Mathis, 2018).

Internet companies are now filtering and removing content such as terrorist

propaganda, banning accounts of radical users, and removing potentially bias content

(Jardine, 2019). Some companies have created programs that can identify hate speech

(Burnap & Williams, 2016). However, with the number of “protected characteristics”

(race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and so forth.) and the factors associated with

hate crime terms, the process of overseeing hate speech on the internet is impossible

(Burnap & Williams, 2016). Monitoring cyber speech is difficult and classifying hate

speech content is time-consuming. Cyberhate will remain a part of the internet because

social media companies are relaxed in policing the on-line environment (Burnap &

Williams, 2016). Prosecuting cyberhate is difficult (Burnap & Williams, 2016). However,

any bans or restrictions on speech may force groups to resort to the dark web as a way to

continue operation. The dark web provides anonymity because it disassociates the user

from the content that is being spread (Jardine, 2019). Illinois became the first state to

enact a “group liberal” hate speech law that criminalized bigoted “defamatory”

statements relating to racial, religious, or ethnic group (Levin, 2002). The “group liberal”

law made it to the supreme court in 1952; however, Illinois disbanded the law in 1961,

and the law is no longer valid in the United States (Levin, 2002). However, any bans on

hate speech undermine democracy (Gould, 2019), and hate crime legislation violates free

speech (Mathis, 2018). Hate speech can incite others to commit violence and it is the

actions that follow the speech that raises concerns. Viewing online hate material will give

the viewer a sense of ‘virtual proximity” and create a bond and reduce the chance of

others disrupting their expressions of hatred (Hawdon et al., 2017). Social media can be

used for planning hate crimes, which are punishable by law; however, hate speech is a

verbal attach with no legal consequences (Chetty & Alathur, 2018).

Penalty Enhancement

A criminal offense must first be classified as a crime before it can be viewed in

the context of a hate crime (Gould, 2019). Motives behind the crime distinguish baseline

crimes from hate crimes. Prejudice or bias motivators acts as the intent (guilty mind).

However, when intent occurs in conjunction with action, this constitutes a hate crime

(Gould, 2019). Indicators of bias can include (a) derogatory remarks, (b) offender’s

admission, (c) labeling of crime as a hate crime by law enforcement, (d) symbolic

location such as traditionally Black Church or gay nightclub, (e) victim is part of the

identified group, (f) offender had committed previous violence against a particular group,

and (g) symbolic manipulation of the body (Gruenewald & Allison, 2018). For example,

James Byrd’s body was placed on the steps of an African American church to instill fear

in the entire community (Harris, & Ulmer, 2017). Adding a racial component to an

offense upgrades the offense to a hate crime, and it would be discriminatory to exclude

the racial hate during adjudication (Gould, 2019). However, punishment is not based

solely on basis of hatred or prejudice, but by the actions of the offender (Mathis, 2018).

Hate crimes send a psychological message to the victim and members of the

protected group that they are subhuman: therefore, any actions displayed against them are

acceptable. The message of inferiority to the victim (Kauppinen, 2015) is used to

maintain control. These crimes warrant increased penalty because they are more horrific

than baseline crimes and pose a deeper emotional turmoil for the victims. Hate crimes are

motivated by biases that manifest into criminal activity. An assault becomes a hate crime

when the motivating factor is hatred against the protected group (Swiffen ,2018).

Some may justify hate by spewing rhetoric, such as they are doing God’s work to

become soldiers in a race war (Blazak, 2001). However, any attempts to justify hate

continue to dehumanize and oppress a group to maintain a sense of superiority. The

motive gives an action a meaning distinct from another action (Mathias, 2018). Example:

John may choose to assault Bob because Bob is an easy target. This action is not

necessarily motivated by bias and maybe merely a crime of opportunity. However, if

John attacks Perter because of his sexual orientation, then the crime is motivated by bias.

Crimes committed based on prejudice communicates to others that because they are

different, the offender has the right to assault or harass them based on their biases.

Penalty enhancement is contingent on three factors (a) political identity, (b),

victim type, and (c) hate crime-related beliefs (Cramer et al. 2017). Political affiliation

may play a role in support of or in opposition to hate crime legislation. The conservative

may have a negative view of members of the subordinate group (Kinder & Sear,1981:

Haddock et al., 1993). Conservatives also lack support for minorities in hate crime laws

and do not endorse stricter penalties (Cabeldue at el, 2018). The hate crime offense

presents a more profound feeling of wrong than other crimes because of the greater threat

it imposes to the individual victim as well as the group (Kauppinen, 2015). Enhanced

penalties represent society’s disapproval of the crime, and the appropriate legislation will

increase the idea of equality for all citizens. (Kauppinen, 2015). Penalty enhancement

incorporates the utilitarian theory view of punishment in that punishment creates a

deterrent and promotes a safe community (Fetzer & Pezzella, 2019). Hate crimes

undermine diversity, and enhanced penalties demonstrate disagreement (Fetzer &

Pezzella, 2019).

Victim Type and Penalty Enhancement

The social status of the offender and victim are obtained through attitudes

expressed by others and how society and the law respond to the attitudes (Kaupinnen,

2015). People buy into the notion of maintaining the social hierarchy; therefore, blaming

the victim for the crime committed against them is second nature. Victims are targeted

for having a particular characteristic and the same characteristics are subsequently used

as the motive behind the crime. Understanding the nuances of blame attribution is

significant because it can impact legal decisions and penalty enhancement (Cramer et al.,

2014). The defense attorney will attempt to find something negative about the victim,

such as prior criminal history, to distort the facts of the case, which will shift the blame to

the victim, while the perpetrator is hailed a hero. Therefore, penalty enhancement may

not serve as a deterrent to committing these crimes.

A social conflict begins with a psychological struggle and the difficulty of

interpreting interactions with others (Moye et al., 2017). Despite the upward mobility of

African Americans, the more integrated a neighborhood becomes, the less likely Whites

will perceive it as a pleasant neighborhood (Krysan, 2009). Police view African

Americans in a predominately white area seen as being “out of place.” The neighbors

begin to react on the presumption that the African American male is violating their social

space. Compound with the notion that the African American male does not belong, the

brain triggers an emotional response that the African American male will commit an act

of violence (Moye et al., 2017). However, the White male in a Black neighborhood does

not raise an eyebrow.

In the Trayvon Martin case, Travon, a young African American male, was

walking a predominately White neighborhood in the Sanford Community. George

Zimmerman saw Travon and called 911. Zimmerman was instructed to remain in his

vehicle because police were on their way. However, Zimmerman ignored the request of

the 911operator and followed Trayvon. Since Trayvon was perceived to be out of place,

Zimmerman immediately resulted to racial schemas and made comments such as “he

looks really suspicious” and “this guy looks as though he is up to no good.” Zimmerman

may have felt he needed to protect the white space from an outsider like Travon.

Zimmerman followed and shot/killed Travon for merely being an African American male

walking down the street. Zimmerman’s defense attorney used self-defense and stand your

ground law as a way of justifying the killing. However, it was Travon’s fault because he

violated the White social space (Moye et al., 2017). There is a continuous struggle for the

African American community to distance themselves from the racial schemas that are

embedded in a system that perpetuates racism (Moye et al., 2017).

Hate Crime Related Beliefs and Penalty Enhancement

Hate crime legislation is three dimensional, and all three entities should work

together to create a victim-focused understanding and responses to targeted violence

(Perry, 2016). The hate crime triangle consists of (a) policy and practice, (b) activism,

and (c) research (Perry, 2016). In the policy and practice stage of the triangle, current

policies are analyzed and revised, laws are defined, resources allocated, and the protected

groups are identified (Perry, 2016). Enhanced penalties are seldom used because of the

burden to prove that the crime was motivated by biases. Judges rely on sentencing

guidelines with non-biases motivated crimes (Fetzer & Pezzella, 2019), and the way hate

crimes are recorded and published will impact awareness and punishment. Stage I of the

triage is where the power lies (Perry, 2016).

In the second-dimension, activism requires support from advocacy groups to

educate the public and criminal justice professionals on the emotional, physical, and

psychological impact of hate crime (Perry, 2016). The advocacy offers support in favor

of the victim, because hate crime extends from the individual victim to the community

(Perry & Alvi, 2011). Advocating for the victims can dismantle schemas, which can lead

to victim-blaming.

The final dimension of the hate crime triangle is research. Research supplies the

theoretical basis and evidence base for hate crime (Perry, 2016). Research can provide an

insight into policy development and what hate crime is or is not. However, for enhanced

penalties to have an impact, hate crime cases should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis

(Iganski & Lagou, 2015). In considering the background of the case, courts can further

understand the offender’s culpability, which can serve to support penalty enhancement

(Iganski & Lagou, 2015).

The enhanced penalty sends the message that hate crimes are not tolerated or

accepted by the community (Gerstenfield, 2011) and serves as a means to counter hatred

(Baron, 2016). However, judges may increase the penalty for any baseline offense;

therefore, any crime committed by hate can be classified as a hate crime (Adams, 2005).

In support of increased penalties, bias-motivated offenders are considered morally

heinous (Adams, 2005), and the commission of a hate crime is inexcusable from a jury

standpoint (Cramer et al., 2013).

Challenges to Penalty Enhancement

Hatred and societal conflict with deep psychological origins spread terror between

and within groups, thus having a universal concept of hate can be difficult to pinpoint

(Garland & Chakraborti, 2012). Introducing penalty enhancement may be difficult when

deciding what offenses should be suitable for hate crime legislation (Brax & Munthe,

2015). The hate element of a hate crime is seen as adding insult to injury, and opponents

may question whether penalty enhancement should be imposed (Brax & Munthe, 2015).

The enhanced penalty considers the motive behind the crime, which serves as the reason

the offender acted the way they did (Mathis, 2018). However, the lines become blurred

when there is more than one motive or offender (Mathis, 2018).

Challengers of hate crime legislation believe that additional punishment is

unnecessary because: (a) minorities should not be given special treatment because they

belong to one of the identified special groups (Cabeldue et al., 2018). Hate crime

legislation then creates an imbalance between hate crimes and other baseline offenses,

making them unconstitutional. Also, some victims of hate crime see hate crime laws and

enhanced punishment as a way of configuring their image as inferior since special laws

are needed to protect them (Mason, 2014), (b) a person murdered in a hate crime, is just

as dead if they were killed in a robbery, home invasion, or through random act (Sullaway,

2004), (c) penalty enhancement violates the double jeopardy law since the offender is

found guilty of the baseline offense and should not receive additional punishment for the

bias-motivated aspect of the crime, and (d) the law is discriminatory because people are

punished for their beliefs (Mathis, 2018), and the law stigmatizes the opinions that would

cause a person to act (Mathis, 2018). Punishing a person for their beliefs violates their

First Amendment Rights (Gerstenfeld, 2011). However, regardless of a person’s beliefs,

they are not punished until a crime is committed.

Obstacles for Law Enforcement

Police must identify the bias motivation behind the hate crime. It may be

challenging to determine a motive when the components do not fit a “true hate crime.”

(Lantz et al., 2019). Personal biases, awareness, and the department’s priority will

determine if a crime is labeled and investigated as a hate crime (Lantz et al., 2019). In

states without hate crime legislation, incidents such as a cross-burning will be

investigated as a simple trespass rather than a hate crime; therefore, the atrocities

continue without consequences (Bell, 2019). Improperly documenting a crime as a hate

crime may give the impression that hate crime statistics are low, and future hate crimes

will be viewed as an isolated incident. Therefore, the push for penalty enhancement will

be unjustified, and the number of hate crimes prosecuted under the bias sentence

enhancement will be low (Ruback et al., 2015). The lack of prosecution may weaken the

idea that hate crimes are more psychologically damaging. Fetzer and Pezella (2017)

analyzed the 2010 NIBRS data and found that physical injuries were more severe when

associated with a hate crime than the non-bias crime. In a 2013 study conducted by

Plumm and Terrance, when a crime was labeled as an assault instead of hate crime, the

offender was guilty and the victim was seen as more culpable. Therefore, labeling a crime

as a hate crime may have a reverse effect when administering penalty (Plumm &

Terrance, 2013).\

Hate Crime and Schemas

A schema is a cognitive framework that allows police officers to organize and

interpret information (Brewer & Nakamura, 1984). However, schemas may influence

police to exclude pertinent information due to prior knowledge or experience of a

situation. Police use schemas when investigating a sexual assault (Venema, 2016) by

implying that the way the victim dressed facilitated the attack. Limited resources, time

constraints, and inadequate training may cause police to use schemas when investigating

hate crimes (Lantz et al., 2019). Because a bias motivator must be present, the police may

rely on their personal experience to document the offense as a hate crime and base

decisions on the likelihood that the crime will be prosecuted (Lantz et al., 2019).

Schemas also influence the perception of which hate crimes are most important

for investigation and shape ideas of police perception of the idea victim (Lantz et al.,

2019). Police have discretion on whether to categorize an incident as a hate crime, which

can be swayed by organizational or community pressure (Walfield et al., 2017). As such,

some victims will not report a hate crime because they believe the police will not take

them seriously (Ruback et al., 2015). Racial schemas continue to define the African

American male as villains and a threat to social order (Feagin et al., 2001). In contrast to

the White male who serves as the norm (Moye et al., 2015). Schemas impact how

individuals interpret information and react to African American males (Moye et al.,

2015), and may influence whether or not police shoot and kill an unarmed man (Kahn &

Davies, 2017). Crimes committed against the African American male are seen as justified

because the media portrays them as less socially respectable (Dukes & Gaither 2017).

Conclusion

There is a psychological impact associated with hate crimes that make them more

harmful than baseline offenses. When individuals are dehumanized, crimes committed

against seem justifiable by the offender (Mathais, 2018). Hate messages can be spread by

individuals in workplace, college campus, community, and through the political arena by

way of hate spin. Criminalization or prohibiting hate speech does not address social

problems (Swiffen, 2018) or influence social injustice (Simpson, 2019). However,

understanding the complexity of hate crime in ways such as victim-blaming, schemas,

institutional racism, media portrayal of the victim, and the desire to maintain the social

hierarchy, provides an avenue to better approach the issue. Therefore, implementing the

hate crime triangle through policy and practice, activism, and research provides a

foundation for social change and equality.

In Chapter 3, I discussed the research design and methodology used in this study.

Chapter 3: Research Method

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this quantitative, nonexperimental study was to explore the role

that race plays in determining the types of injuries sustained by hate crime victims and to

examine whether victims of racially motivated hate crimes experienced depression and

anxiety at higher rate than that of victims of other bias motivated crimes. For this study, I

analyzed hate crime data for 2016.

Chapter 3 outlined the methodology used in the study. After a discussion of the

research design and rationale for the study, I described the sample population, how data

records were collected, and the software and type of analysis that was used to assess the

data. Chapter 3 concluded with an examination of the threats to internal and external

validity as well as any ethical concerns surrounding the study.

Research Design and Rationale

In this quantitative, nonexperimental study, I analyzed existing data to answer the

research questions. This study identified the relationship between the independent and

dependent variables. The datasets used for the study are accessible to the public;

therefore, there were no time or resource constraints associated with the study.

Conducting a quantitative, nonexperimental study demonstrated how hate crimes

were more injurious for African American than for other groups and how victims of

racially motivated hate crimes experienced more psychological trauma than other victims

did.

Research Questions

RQ1: To what extent are racially motivated hate crimes more injurious for

African Americans vs other groups?

Following the adversary hypothesis on hate crimes, it is noted that offenders

choose their victims based on the perceived dangerousness of the victim (Powers &

Socia, 2019). African American males are stereotypically perceived to be a more

dangerous, more intimidating, and higher risk to society because they are able and willing

to physically retaliate (Powers & Socia, 2019), as such, their injuries are more severe and

more likely to result in death (Powers & Socia, 2019). Felson and Pare (2010) conducted

a study using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey Supplemental

Homicide report to test the adversary hypothesis and found that African American

victims, compared to White victims are more likely to be attacked by guns and other

weapons and the likelihood of severe injury or death is expected to occur.

RQ2: To what extent are victims of racially motivated crimes more likely to

experience depression and anxiety vs. other hate crime victims.

Hate crimes are more psychologically damaging than non-bias crimes because

they negatively affect the greater community and send a message of violence to members

of the victim’s group or the community (Iganski, 2001; Weinstein, 1992). Hate crimes

undermine the efforts for a diverse society (Fetzer & Pezella, 2019), and the

psychological trauma such as anxiety, depression, and sadness (Fetzer & Pezella, 2019)

may differ across racial groups.

Theoretical Framework

Social dominance theory is about control and a way to control an individual is

through threats and violence. However, in bias motivated crimes, members of the

targeted group are impacted because the crimes aim to disgrace their characteristics or

belief system. Prosecutors may fail to acknowledge a crime as a hate crime or administer

an enhanced penalty; therefore, the victims of the bias motivated crimes believe they are

not worthy of equal treatment (Sullivan, Ong, LaMacchia, and Louis, 2016). Therefore,

the oppressor maintains their leverage over the victim because there are little to no

consequences.

Methodology

The target population for the study included hate crime offenses reported by law

enforcement agencies to the FBI and Department of Justice in the United States between

January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. Law enforcement agencies report crime

statistics directly to the FBI or through the state reporting system. The datasets are

available through the ICPSR. The data were archived in five separate components (a)

summary data, (b) county-level data, (c) incident-level data from the National Incident-

Based Reporting System, (d) hate crime data, and (e) various, non-recurring, data

collections. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations,

collected data using computer-assisted and self-interview (CASH) or the self-enumerated

questionnaire, using a structured questionnaire as the research instrument. Hate crime

data collection became mandated in 1990, under the Hate Crime Statistics Act. The

information required under this act includes the number of victims, number of offenders,

type of victims, bias motivators, offense type, and location. For this study, hate crime

data were obtained from ICPSR, titled Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data: Hate

Crime (Record-Type Files), United States, ICPSR 37060.

Each police agency was represented by a single batch header, whether or not they

reported any hate crime incidents. Information contained in the batch header included

hate crime record type, numeric state code, population, judicial district, and current

population. ICPSR added the HC-Flag to indicate whether any hate crime incidents were

included in the Hate Crime Incident-Record File, and the file contained one record for

every hate crime. The Batch Header File variables were merged with the Record File for

the agency that reported hate crime incidents. The Batch Header contained 22,784 cases

and 54 variables. The Crime Incident-Record was linked to the Batch Header using an

Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) assigned by the FBI. The Crime Incident-Record

File contained 6,268 cases, and 179 variables.

The National Crime Victimization Survey for 2016 was used to access data

pertaining to the victim’s emotional challenges associated with the hate crime. The data

were collected by the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The National Crime Victimization Survey collected data on personal and household

victimization using surveys. The U.S. Census Bureau administered the survey on behalf

of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The purpose of the surveys was to: (a) develop detailed

information about the victims and consequences of crime, (b) estimate the number of

types of crimes not reported to the police, (c) provide uniform measures of selected types

of crimes, and (d) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas. The target

population included individuals 12 years of age and older living in households and group

quarters within the United States and the District of Columbia. The data did not include

persons on crews of vessels, in penal institutions, nursing homes, or members of the

armed forces living in military barracks. NCVS used the “collection year format” to

collect data. In this format, crimes were reported based on the interview date rather than

the date the crime occurred. Therefore, if a crime was committed in December 2015 and

the victim was interviewed in May 2016, the crime incident was documented in the 2016

statistics. Data in the NCVS dataset were recorded using four file types, which were (a)

address, (b) household, (c) person, and (d) incident. Data were collected in written format

via control card, basic screen questions, and crime incident report. Additional methods of

collecting data included telephone interviews, computer-aided telephone interviews, and

face-to-face interviews.

Data Collection Methods

Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique used to gather

information on the injuries sustained during hate crimes and the mental impact the crimes

had on the victims. I used purposive sampling to obtain data for this study because the

characteristics of the selected population were known (i.e., victims of hate crime). The

criteria used to select data were that the participants were victims of hate crimes in the

year 2016.

Ex post facto data were obtained from the Uniform Crime Reporting Program

Data: Hate Crime Data for 2016 and the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2016. The

datasets are stored at the ICPSR at https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/ and are

accessible to the public. To gain access to the website, new users must create an account

to include a username and password. Users must agree to the “Terms of Use” agreement

before accessing data. Any questions can be directed to the Data Services Project

Manager at the phone number provided on the ICPSR website. Users can select several

formats for the datasets (SAS, SPSS, STATA, ASCII). For this study, the SPSS format

was used for statistical analysis.

Data Analysis

RQ1: To what extent are racially motivated crimes more injurious for African

Americans as compared to other groups?

A frequency test was conducted to narrow down the bias motivators to the five

most reported for hate crime incidents. Next, a cross-tabulation/Chi-Square was

conducted to examine the bias motivators against the UCR offense code (manslaughter,

rape, assault) to compare the victim's injuries.

Pulido (2015) noted that the desire of the dominant group to protect what they

perceive to be theirs or to protect the “white space” is not attributed to racial animus but

is a way of creating the best opportunity for themselves. As such, a final cross tabulation

was conducted to determine the role the offender’s race plays in the commission of hate

crimes.

The Crosstabulation/Chi-Square was used to analyze data using the SPSS

(Version 27). Chi-square test for independence was appropriate because it passed the two

mandatory assumptions: (a) the variables were measured as categorical variables, and (b)

the variables contained two or more categorical independent groups (Lared Statistics,

2018).

The 3 x 2 crosstabulation was used to compare the impact that the independent

variables (bias motivator, race) had on the dependent variable (injuries, such as

manslaughter, assault, rape, etc.). The data also examined nonlethal aspect of hate crime

such as intimidation, vandalism, and threats.

RQ2: To what extent are victims of racially motivated crimes more likely to

experience depression and anxiety as compared to victims of other bias motivated

crimes?

Victimization Survey

The independent and dependent variables were documented as categorical

variables. The variables were further broken down into subcategories. The response to

each question was either yes, no, don’t know, residue, or out of universe. Responses that

were keyed in incorrectly and any invalid entry was recorded as missing or residue.

Out of universe: The missing data were coded as 9, which indicated that the case

was outside of the applicable range or universe of questions to be answered. For example,

only the victims who reported they were injured were asked whether they received

medical care. All other victims were not asked this question and the question was coded

as a 9.

Independent variables: Bias motivators: Race, religion, ethnicity, disability, gender,

sexuality, associate, and perception.

Dependent variables: Injuries sustained, how destressing being a victim, do you feel:

worried, sad or depressed, vulnerable, violated, mistrust, unsafe, or other, seek

professional help, physical problems,

Threats to Validity

A threat to external validity included examining data for a 1-year period, which

may not provide an in-depth analysis of the problem. The threat to internal validity may

have existed as a result of victims failing to report hate crimes, and law enforcement

agencies failing to categorize a crime as a hate crime, or accurately record the bias

motivators, and the race of the victim and perpetrator. The criteria for hate crimes may

differ across jurisdictions, which may lead to underreporting.

Ethical Concerns

This quantitative study used existing data records detailing hate crime statistics in

the United States in 2016. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval #12-07-20-

0456946 was granted prior to collecting data. No human participants were interviewed,

surveyed, or contacted to gather information. Therefore, the concern for any human rights

violations or physical harm to the participants did not present any ethical concerns. The

data records did not contain any personal identifies linking the offender and the victims to

the hate crime. Also, individual law enforcement agencies were not identified, and a

collective analysis of the state’s hate crime statistics were recorded. Therefore, there was

no potential risk to human participants (victims) nor a risk of violating a confidentiality

agreement. There was no funding provided or conflict of interest surrounding this study.

Data records were obtained from the ICPSR website at

https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/, which is accessible to the public. Although the

data records are open to the public, the files were stored on a personal computer using a

password- protected file, and a backfile was maintained on an external hard drive. The

McAfee antivirus software was used to protect against the introduction of malware and

other viruses that may attack or compromise computer files. Any printed documents were

stored in a locked safe, and no other parties had the combination. The dissertation chair

and committee member received the results of the study via e-mail. The data records will

be kept for five years after the final dissertation has been approved.

Summary

The purpose of this quantitative non-experimental study was to measure the

relationship between the independent variables: race and bias motivators against the

dependent variables: injuries and emotion impact of the hate crime. Chapter 3 discussed

the research design and rationale, methodology, data records and collection, threats to

validity, and ethical concerns. This study used existing data records only, and no

interviews, surveys, or focus groups were incorporated in this study. Chapter 4 provided

the results and discussion of the research.

Chapter 4: Results of the Study

Research Question 1

RQ1: To what extent are hate crimes more injurious for African Americans vs

other groups?

To answer the first research question, a frequency test was conducted to

determine the top five bias-motivated hate crimes reported to law enforcement in 2016.

The top five bias motivators (see Table 1 and Figure 1) were identified as follows: anti-

African Americans, which reported 1,789 (28.5%) of the total 6,268 hate crime incidents

in 2016, anti-White reported 746 (11.9%) incidents, anti-gay men* reported 699 (11.2%)

offenses, anti-Jewish ranked fourth with 695 (11.1%) hate crime incidents, and anti-

Hispanic or Latinos reported 351 (5.6%) hate crimes in 2016. The total number of

reported hate crime incidents among the five groups: N = 4,280.

Second, a frequency test was conducted to determine the number and types of

hate crimes committed in 2016. The UCR offense codes were comprised of 33 law

violations (see Table 2 and Figure 2), which were further divided into two categories:

violent crimes and nonviolent crimes. Violent crimes included a total of 10 UCR offense

codes, and nonviolent crimes contained 23 UCR offense codes.

*The dataset used the term male homosexual to identify gay men. However, this is a pejorative term and is no longer

used (American Psychological Association, 2020). Therefore, the phrase male homosexual was replaced with the

appropriate term, i.e. gay or gay man.

Table 1

Bias Motivation

Bias motivation - Offense 1

Anti-Black or African American

1789

28.5%

Anti-White

746

11.9%

Anti-Gay Male*

699

11.2%

Anti-Jewish

695

11.1%

Anti-Hispanic or Latino

351

5.6%

Anti-Islamic

308

4.9%

Anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender,

Mixed Group (LGBT)

248

4.0%

Anti-Not Hispanic or Latino

228

3.6%

Anti-American Indian or Alaska Native

158

2.5%

Anti-Multi-Racial

142

2.3%

Anti-Gay Women*

131

2.1%

Anti-Asian

114

1.8%

Anti-Transgender

106

1.7%

Anti-Other Religion

1.3%

Anti-Catholic

1.0%

Anti-Mental Disability

0.9%

Anti-Arab

0.9%

Anti-Physical Disability

0.7%

Anti-Other Christian

0.6%

Anti-Multi-Religious

0.5%

Anti-Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian, etc.)

0.5%

Anti-Bisexual

0.4%

Anti-Female

0.4%

Anti-Heterosexual

0.3%

Anti-Gender Non-Conforming

0.3%

Anti-Protestant

0.3%

Anti-Hindu

0.2%

Anti-Sikh

0.2%

Anti-Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

0.1%

Anti-Mormon

0.1%

Anti-Male

0.1%

Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism

0.1%

Anti-Jehovah's Witness

0.0%

Anti-Buddhist

0.0%

Figure 1

Bias Motivation

Table 2

UCR Offense Code

UCR Offense Code-1

Destruction/vandalism

1826

29.1%

Intimidation

1574

25.1%

Simple assault

1454

23.2%

Aggravated assault

686

10.9%

Robbery

126

2.0%

Burglary/breaking and entering

119

1.9%

All other larceny

113

1.8%

Drug/narcotics violations

0.8%

Arson

0.7%

Shoplifting

0.7%

Theft from motor vehicle

0.6%

Theft from building

0.4%

Motor vehicle theft

0.4%

Weapon law violations

0.3%

Rape

0.3%

Drug equipment violations

0.3%

Impersonation

0.2%

False pretenses/swindle/confidence game

0.2%

Credit card/ATM fraud

0.2%

Counterfeit/forgery

0.2%

Kidnapping/abduction

0.1%

Theft of motor vehicle parts

0.1%

Stolen property offenses

0.1%

Fondling (indecent liberties/child molesting)

0.1%

Murder/non-negligent manslaughter

0.1%

Sodomy

0.1%

26F-Identity theft

0.0%

Embezzlement

0.0%

Pornography/obscene material

0.0%

Sex assault w/object

0.0%

Extortion/blackmail

0.0%

Pocket-picking

0.0%

Statutory rape

0.0%

Figure 2

UCR Offense Code

Violent Crimes

Violent crimes (see Table 3) were classified as offenses that could cause physical

harm or death to an individual. Violent crimes included simple assault, aggravated

assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping/abduction, fondling, murder/non-negligent

manslaughter, sodomy, sex-assault with an object, and statutory rape.

Table 3

UCR Offense Code-Violent Crimes

UCR offense code

Total number of reported crimes

Simple assault

1454

Aggravated assault

686

Robbery

126

Rape

Kidnapping/abduction

Fondling

Murder/non-negligent manslaughter

Sodomy

Sex assault with object

Statutory rape

Total

2310

Nonviolent Crimes

Nonviolent crimes are crimes that were not life-threatening or crimes committed

against property. The nonviolent offenses (see Table 4) included destruction/vandalism,

intimidation, burglary/breaking and entering, all other larceny, drug/narcotics violation,

arson, shoplifting, theft from motor vehicle, theft from building, motor vehicle theft,

weapon law violation, drug equipment violation, impersonation, false

pretenses/swindling, credit card/ATM fraud, counterfeit/forgery, theft of motor vehicle

parts, stolen property offenses, 26F (Identify Theft), pornography/obscene material,

embezzlement, extortion/blackmail, and pickpocketing.

Table 4

UCR Offense Code: Nonviolent Crimes

UCR Offense Code-1

Total number of reported crimes

Destruction/vandalism

1826

Intimidation

1574

Burglary/breaking and entering

119

All other larceny

113

Drug/narcotics violation

Arson

Shoplifting

Theft from motor vehicle

Theft from building

Motor vehicle theft

Weapon law violation

Drug equipment violation

Impersonation

False pretenses/swindle/confidence game

Credit card/ATM fraud

Counterfeit/forgery

Theft of motor vehicle parts

Stolen property offenses

26F-Identity theft

Pornography/obscene material

Embezzlement

Extortion/blackmail

Pick pocketing

Total

3958

Finally, I conducted a crosstabulation to analyze the UCR offense code against

the bias motivators (see Figures 3-7) to compare the extent of injury for the identified

groups: Anti-Black or African American, anti-White, anti-gay male, anti-Jewish, and

anti-Hispanic or Latino.

A final frequency test was conducted to determine the offender’s race as a group

(see Table 5 and Figure 8).

Figure 3

Bias Motivation: Anti-Black or African American

Figure 4

Bias Motivation: Anti-White

Figure 5

Bias Motivation: Anti-Gay Male

Figure 6

Bias Motivation: Anti-Jewish

Figure 7

Bias Motivation: Anti-Hispanic or Latino

Table 5

Offenders Race as a Group

Race

Unknown

2715

43.3%

White

2196

35.0%

Black or African American

1090

17.4%

Multi-Racial group

180

2.9%

American Indian/Alaska Native

0.7%

Asian

0.6%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

0.1%

Figure 8

Offenders Race as a Group

Table 6

Bias Motivation and Offenders Race as a Group

Bias Motivation

Asian

Black or

African

American

Indian/Alaska

Native

Multi-

Racial

Group

Native

Hawaiian/

Other

Pacific

Islander

Unknown

White

Total

Anti-White

343

233

129

746

Anti-Black or African

American

735

905

1789

Anti-American Indian

or Alaska Native

158

Anti-Asian

114

Anti-Multi-Racial

142

Anti-Native Hawaiian

or other Pacific

Islander

Anti-Jewish

543

104

695

Anti-Catholic

Anti-Protestant

Anti-Islamic

156

105

308

Anti-Other Religion

Anti-Multi-Religious

Anti-

Atheism/Agnosticism

Anti-Mormon

Anti-Jehovah’s Witness

Anti-Arab

Anti-Hispanic or Latino

173

351

Anti-Not Hispanic or

Latino

130

228

Anti-Gay Male

196

239

233

699

Anti-Gay Female

131

Anti-Lesbian, Gar, or

Transgender, Mixed

Group (LGBT)

107

248

Anti-Heterosexual

Anti-Bisexual

Anti-Physical

Disability

Anti-Mental Disability

Anti-Male

Anti-Female

Anti-Transgender

106

Ant-Gender Non-

Conforming

Anti-Eastern Orthodox

(Greek, Russian, etc.)

Anti-Other Christian

Anti-Buddhist

Anti-Hindu

Anti-Sikh

Total

1090

180

2715

2196

6268

Figure 9

Bias Motivation and Offenders Race as a Group

Analysis of Violent Crimes

Simple Assault:

There were a total of 1,454 simple assault hate crimes committed in 2016 (see

Tables 2-3 and Figures 3-7). Of which, 381 (26.20%) were committed against African

Americans, 189 (12.99%) were committed against White’s, 253 (17.40%) were anti-gay

male 61 (4.19 %) were Anti-Jewish, 16 (1.10%) were Anti-Hispanic or Latino. The

number of reported simple assault cases for African Americans was 381, which was 46%

more assault cases committed against Whites (189). Whites committed 46.6% (678) of

the simple assaults, African Americans perpetrated 20.2% (425), and 18.4% (268) of the

simple assaults were committed by offenders where the race was unknown.

When examining the total number of reported hate crimes per individual group

(African Americans, Whites, Jews, gay men, and Hispanic or Latino’s) against the

number of simple assault cases (1,454), gay men (699 reported hate crimes) had the

highest percentage (36.19%) of simple assaults. African Americans, who reported a total

of 1,789 hate crimes, of which 21.29% (381 incidents) were contributed to simple

assaults. Whites reported a total of 746 hate crimes (see Table 1 and Figure 1), and

25.33% of the incidents were associated with simple assaults. Whites perpetrated 261

simple assaults against African Americans, while African Americans committed 123

simple assaults against Whites.

Aggravated Assault

There were 686 aggravated assault cases reported in 2016 (see Tables 2-3 and

Figures 2-7). African Americans were victims in 31.34% (215) of the reported aggravated

assault cases and 12.01% of the reported hate crime cases (1789) for African Americans.

Gay men were victims in 116 cases, or 16.90% of the reported aggravated assaults and

16.69% of the total reported hate crimes (699) for the group. Whites reported 93 cases

(13.55%) of aggravated assaults, which represents 12.46% of the total hate crimes (746)

for the group. However, Hispanic or Latino reported a total of 351 hate crimes, of which

61 incidents were contributed to aggravated assault cases or 17.37% of the hate crimes

for the group (see Table 6). Whites were the perpetrator in 314 of the 686 aggravated

assaults, African Americans committed 210 assaults, followed by 99 for individuals

where the race was unknown. Whites committed 165 aggravated assault against African

Americans and African Americans committed 60 aggravated assaults against Whites.

Robbery

There were 126 reported hate crime robberies in 2016 (see Tables 2-3 and Figures

2-7). Of the top five bias motivators (Anti-White, Anti-African American/Black. Anti-

Jewish, Anti-Hispanic or Latino, and Anti-gay male), African Americans ranked 4th in

victimization with 14 (11.11%) hate crime robberies. However, African Americans

committed 66 (52.38%) of the hate crime robberies. Whites were more victimized (27

cases, 21.42%) in the category of robbery than any of the other groups and committed 20

of the 126 robberies (15.87%). Gay men reported 26 cases (20.63%), Hispanic or Latino

reported 21 robberies (16.66%) and Jews ranked 5th in the reported cases with 3

robberies. In cases where the offender’s race was unknown, 25 robberies were

committed, followed by 12 incidents where the offenders were multi-racial. Whites

perpetrated 10 of the 14 robberies against African Americans and African Americans

were the offender in 20 of the 27 robberies against Whites.

Rape

There were 17 hate crime rapes reported in 2016 (see Tables 2-3 and Figures 2-7).

For the top five bias motivators, African Americans were the victim in two incidents,

Whites were the victim in three cases, and Hispanic or Latino reported one rape incident.

There were no reported rape cases for Jews or gay men. Whites were the offender in eight

of the reported 17 rape cases. African American and incidents where the offender’s race

was unknown were both responsible for four rape cases each. Whites committed the two

rapes against African Americans, and African Americans committed one of the three

rapes cases against Whites.

Kidnapping/Abduction

There were 9 reported kidnaping/abduction cases in 2016 (see Tables 2-3 and

Figures 2-7). African Americans were the victim in 2 of the cases and perpetrated one of

the 9 kidnappings/abduction. Gay men were victimized once. There were no reported

cases for Whites, Jews, or Hispanic/Latino. However, Whites committed 7 of the nine

kidnappings followed by African Americans and unknown race committing one offense

each. Whites committed 1 of the 2 kidnapping/abductions against African Americans and

in the remaining offense the race was unknown.

Fondling

A total of 7 fondling cases were reported in 2016 (see Tables 2-3 and Figures 2-

7). Whites were the only identified group to have two cases. No cases were reported for

African Americans, Jews, Hispanic/Latino, and gay men. Whites also perpetrated 2 of the

7 fondling cases followed by unknown race (4) and African Americans (1).

Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter

There were 5 reported murder/non-negligent manslaughter cases in 2016 (see

Tables 2-3 and Figures 2-7). African Americans had the greatest number of murder/non-

cases with 2 or 40% of the total reported incidents. Whites and gay men reported one

case each. Whites committed 4 of the 5 reported murders/manslaughter crimes followed

by 1 offense committed by African Americans. Whites committed both of the murder

cases against African Americans and African Americans committed the one murder cases

against Whites.

Sodomy

There were a total of 4 reported sodomy cases in 2016 (see Tables 2-3 and

Figures 2-7). Of the five bias motivators, gay men reported one case. There were no

sodomy offenses against Whites, African Americans, Jews or Hispanic/Latino.

Sex Assault With an Object

There was one reported case for sex assault with an object in which the victim and

offender were White (see Tables 2-3 and Figures 2-7).

Statutory Rape

One reported case in which the victim was a gay man and the offender was White

(see Tables 2-3 and Figures 2-7).

Summary of Findings: Violent Crimes

African Americans had the highest overall number of hate crimes reported

totaling 1,789 incidents, or 28.5% of the total number of hate crimes reported in 2016

(6,268). Whites reported being victimized 746 times (11.9%), gay men reported 699 hate

crime incidents (11.2%), Jews, 695 hate crime offenses (11.1%), and Hispanic or Latino

logged 351 hate crimes (5.6%).

The number of violent hate crimes reported totaled 2310, of which African

Americans carried the highest number of victimizations of 616 cases (26.66%). Gay men

were victims of violent hate crimes in 399 incidents or 17.27%, Whites were the victim in

316 violent hate crimes (13.67%), Hispanic/Latino had 99 violent hate crimes incidents

(4.28%), and Jews reported being a victim in 73 or 3.16% of the violent hate crimes.

African Americans had the highest reported cases in the area of simple assault,

aggravated assault, kidnapping, and murder/manslaughter compared to Whites, Jews,

Hispanic/Latino, and gay men. Robbery, rape, fondling, sexual assault with an object

were the areas in which African Americans did not have the highest reported hate crime

incidents. Sodomy reported cases totaled 4. However, there were no cases reported for

Whites, African Americans, Jews, or Hispanic/Latino.

When examining the offender’s race, the unknown race of the offender lead with

2,715 (43.3), followed by Whites with 2,196 (35.0%), African American, 1,090 (17.4%),

American Indian/Alaska Native 42 (0.7%), and Asian 38 (0.6%). For the violent crimes

totaling 2,310 cases, Whites were the leading offender in simple assaults (678),

aggravated assault (314), rape (8), kidnapping (7), murder/manslaughter (4), sex assault

with an object (1), and statutory rape (1). African Americans had the highest recording of

offending in the crime of robbery (66) and when the race of the offender was unknown,

they represented the majority of the fondling (4) and sodomy (2) offenses.

Analysis of Nonviolent Crimes

There were 23 categories of nonviolent crimes documented in 2016. This study

focused on the six most frequently reported crimes. The total number of nonviolent

offenses analyzed in this study: N= 3,721.

• Destruction/vandalism: n=1,826

• Intimidation: n= 1,574

• Burglary: n=119

• All other larceny: n=113

• Drug/narcotics violation: n= 48

• Arson: n = 41

Destruction/Vandalism

There were 1,826 destruction/vandalism hate crimes reported in 2016 (see Table 4

and Figures 2-7). African Americans were victimized in 522 (28.58%) of the hate crime

incidents, followed by Jews who reported 584 (26.56%) incidents, gay men 121 (6.62%)

incidents, and Whites who reported 118 (6.46%) offenses. Hispanic/Latinos had the

lowest incidents of destruction/vandalism with 53 cases (2.90%). The perpetrators, where

the race of the offender was unknown, committed 1,503 of the destruction/vandalism

offenses, of which 88 victims were White, and 432 victims were African American.

African Americans were responsible for 59 of the total number (1,826) of

destruction/vandalism incidents, of which 19 victims were White. Whites were

responsible for 231 destruction/vandalism cases, of which 77 victims were African

American.

Intimidation

There were 1574 reported hate crime intimidation cases in 2016 (see Table 4 and

Figures 2-7). African Americans were a victim of intimidation in 599 cases (38.05%),

gay men reported 160 (10.16%) incidents, Whites 148 cases (9.40%), Jews 103 (6.54 %)

and Hispanic or Latino were a victim in 103 (6.54%) incidents. Intimidation was the

upmost non-violent crime for African Americans in relation to the total number of

intimidation cases (599, 38.05%). Whites were the perpetrator in 740 of the 1,574

intimidation cases, of which 369 victims were African American. Intimation incidents

where the race was unknown resulted in 530 cases. African Americans committed 249 of

the 1,574 intimidation cases, of which 98 victims were White.

Burglary

There were a total of 119 burglary cases reported to law enforcement in 2016 (see

Table 4 and Figures 2-7). Whites had the highest victimization rate with 21 of the 119

reported cases (17.64%), African Americans were a victim in 16 cases (13.44%), Jews 8

cases (6.72%), gay men 6 incidents (5.04%), and Hispanic/Latino 2 cases (1.68%).

African Americans committed 1 of the 21 burglaries against Whites. Whites committed 5

burglaries against African Americans and in incidents where the offender race was

unknown, 8 burglaries were committed against African Americans.

All Other Larceny

There were 113 crimes reported in 2016 (see Table 4 and Figures 2-7). African

Americans ranked third in this category as being a victim in 9 (7.96%) incidents, but

perpetrated 19 (15.96%) of the all other larceny offenses, of which, 5 incidents were

against Whites. Whites had the highest percentage of other larceny cases at 28.31% (32

cases). Jews were a victim in 10 incidents (8.84%), gay men reported 6 cases (5.30%),

and Hispanic/Latino 2 cases (1.76%).

Offenders race for total of all other larceny: n=113 cases

• 65 (57.55%) race unknown

• 26 (23.00%) White

• 19 (16.81%). African Americans

• one (.88%) case each for multirace, American Indian/Alaska Native

• No reported cases for Asians

Drug/Narcotic Violation

There were 48 drug/narcotic violations reported to law enforcement in 2016 (see

Table 4 and Figures 2-7). Whites were the victim in 19 incidents (38.58%), 2 violation

were committed against African Americans and gay men (4.14%), and one drug/narcotic

violation was perpetrated against Hispanic/Latino. There were no reported drug/narcotic

violations for Jews. For the six nonviolent crimes examined in this study, the

drug/narcotic violation was the lowest for African Americans in victimization (4.16%) as

well as the lowest in the overall reported hate crime incidents for African Americans

(1,789 or .11%). The offenders for the drug/narcotic violations included: 34 (70.83%)

incidents perpetrated by White offenders, 10 (20.83%), African American offenders, and

2 (4.16%) incidents perpetrated by American Indian/Alaska Native. There were no

reported drug/narcotic violations for multi-racial, Asian, or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

offenders. Whites committed 1 of the 2 cases against African Americans. African

Americans committed 4 of the 19 drug/narcotic violations against Whites.

Arson

There were 41 arson cases reported in 2016 (see Table 4 and Figures 2-7). African

Americans were a victim in 8 (19.51%) of the 41 arsons, Jews were a victim in five cases

(12.19%), gay men reported 3 incidents (2.43%), and Whites were a victim in 2 of the 41

arson hate crimes (4.87%). There were no reported arson crimes for Hispanic/Latino.

Offenders race: 22 (4.87%) arsons were perpetrated by offenders where the race

unknown, Whites were the offender 12 (29.26%) incidents, African Americans

committed 5 arsons (12.19%), and 2 (4.87%) arson incidents were committed by the

multi-racial group. There were no reported arson cases for American Indian/Alaska

Native, Asian, and Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander. Whites committed 1 of the 8 arsons

against African Americans and 7 incidents were committed by offenders whose race was

unknown. African Americans committed 1 of the 2 arsons against Whites and the

remaining offense was committed by the multi-racial group.

Summary of Findings: Non-Violent Crimes

When examining the six categories of non-violent crimes recorded in this study

(total of 3,721 incidents), African Americans were victims in 1,156 cases (31.06%), Jews

616 incidents (16.55%), Whites 340 cases (9.13%), gay men 298 incidents (8.00%), and

Hispanic/Latino 161 cases (4.32%). African Americans had the highest reported incidents

in destruction/vandalism (522), intimidation (599) and arson (8).

Research Question 2

RQ2: To what extent are victims of racially motivated crimes more likely to

experience depression and anxiety vs. victims of other bias motivated crimes?

A frequency test was conducted to determine the respondent’s insight on what

they believed was the motive behind the hate crime. Respondents could either answer

“Yes”, “No”, or “Don’t’ know” as to whether they believed the crime was motivated by

race, ethnicity, gender, disability, religion, sexuality, or perception. Responses marked as

“residue” contained missing or invalid data. This study focused on the “Yes” responses.

This study analyzed the three most cited motivators, which included race,

ethnicity, and gender. The remaining bias-motivators were not included in this study. To

delve deeper in the victims emotional or mental health after experiencing a hate crime,

five subcategories were examined.

• How distressing it is to be a victim of a hate crime.

• Physical problems associated with being a victim of a hate crime.

• Problems at school/work and seeking professional help.

• Injuries sustained and feelings of sadness and depression.

• The emotional impact of being threatened with bodily harm.

Bias Motivation: Victims Perception

A frequency test was conducted to determine the motive of the hate crime from

the victim’s perception. I used the three most reported motives for this study (see Table

7).

Table 7

Bias Motivation and Victims Perception

Bias motivator

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

Race

155

132

319

Ethnicity

189

319

Gender

206

319

Disability

237

319

Associate

229

319

Religion

253

319

Sexuality

254

319

Perception

255

319

Table 8

Hate Crime: Race

Hate crime: Race

Yes

155

1.2%

132

1.0%

Don’t know

0.0%

Residue

0.2%

Missing

Out of universe

12652

97.5%

Total

12971

100.0%

Figure 10

Hate Crime: Race

Table 9

Hate Crime: Ethnicity

Hate crime: Ethnicity

Yes

0.8%

189

1.5%

Don’t know

0.0%

Residue

0.2%

Missing

Out of universe

12652

97.5%

Total

12971

100.0%

Figure 11

Hate Crime: Ethnicity

Table 10

Hate Crime: Gender

Hate crime: Gender

Yes

0.6%

206

1.6%

Don’t know

0.1%

Residue

0.2%

Missing

Out of universe

12652

97.5%

Total

12971

100.0%

Figure 12

Hate Crime: Gender

How Distressing Being a Victim

A crosstabulation was performed to examine the relationship between race and

how distressing it was being a victim of a hate crime (see Tables 11-13 and Figures 13-

15). The possible responses include severely distressing, moderately distressing, mildly

distressing, not at all distressing, and residue. The crosstabulation included a total of 201

responses. However, this study examined the yes responses relating to severely

distressing. For the variable race, 43 respondents reported that being a victim of a hate

crime was severely distressing. For ethnicity, 24 respondents reported being severely

destressed, and 22 victims who conveyed gender as the motive for the hate crime noted

they were severely distressed.

Table 11

How Distressing Being a Victim and Race

How distressing being a victim

Not at all

distressing

Mildly

distressing

Moderately

distressing

Severely

distressing

Residue

Total

Hate

crime:

Race

Yes

105

Don’t

know

Residue

Total

201

Figure 13

How Distressing Being a Victim and Race

Table 12

How Distressing Being a Victim and Ethnicity

How distressing being a victim

Not at all

distressing

Mildly

distressing

Moderately

distressing

Severely

distressing

Residue

Total

Hate

crime:

Ethnicity

Yes

124

Don’t

know

Residue

Total

201

Figure 14

How Distressing Being a Victim and Ethnicity

Table 13

How Distressing Being a Victim and Gender

How distressing being a victim

Hate

crime:

Gender

Not at all

distressing

Mildly

distressing

Moderately

distressing

Severely

distressing

Residue

Total

Yes

135

Don’t

know

Residue

Total

201

Figure 15

How Distressing Being a Victim and Gender

Physical Problems Associated With Being a Victim of a Hate Crime

This category contained eight possible physical problems such as headaches,

trouble sleeping, changes in eating/drinking, upset stomach, fatigue, high blood pressure,

muscle tension, and other. A crosstabulation was conducted to analyze the connection

between race (see Tables 14-21 and Figures 16-23), ethnicity (see Tables 22-29 and

Figures 24-31), and gender (see Tables 30-37 and Figures 32-39) with physical problems

associated with being a victim of a hate crime. Victims who reported that the hate crime

was associated with race scored the most cases in each category headache (26), trouble

sleeping (30), changes in eating and drinking (18), upset stomach (21), fatigue (22),

blood pressure (10), muscle tension (26), and other (7). Victims who conveyed that the

hate crime was associated with ethnicity ranked second to race in headache (20), trouble

sleeping (24), fatigue (18), and other (6). Ethnicity and race both reported 19 cases in the

category of muscle tension. However, victims who answered the hate crime was

motivated by gender had more reported cases than ethnicity in the area of trouble

eating/drinking (16), upset stomach and (16) blood pressure.

Table 14

Physical Problems: Headache and Race

Physical problems: Headaches

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 16

Physical Problems: Headache and Race

Table 15

Physical Problems: Trouble Sleeping and Race

Physical problems-Trouble sleeping

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 17

Physical Problems: Trouble Sleeping and Race

Table 16

Physical Problems: Changes in Eating/Drinking and Race

Physical problems: Changes in

eating/drinking

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 18

Physical Problems: Changes in Eating/Drinking and Race

Table 17

Physical Problems: Upset Stomach and Race

Physical problems- Upset stomach

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 19

Physical Problems: Upset Stomach and Race

Table 18

Physical Problems: Fatigue and Race

Physical problems-Fatigue

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 20

Physical Problems: Fatigue and Race

Table 19

Physical Problems: High Blood Pressure and Race

Physical problems-High blood pressure

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 21

Physical Problems: High Blood Pressure and Race

Table 20

Physical Problems: Muscle Tension and Race

Physical problems-Muscle tension

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 22

Physical Problems: Muscle Tension and Race

Table 21

Physical Problems: Other and Race

Physical problems-Other

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

106

122

Figure 23

Physical Problems: Other and Race

Table 22

Physical Problems: Headaches and Ethnicity

Physical problems-Headaches

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime:

Ethnicity

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 24

Physical Problems: Headaches and Ethnicity

Table 23

Physical Problems: Trouble Sleeping and Ethnicity

Physical problems-Trouble sleeping

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime:

Ethnicity

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 25

Physical Problems: Trouble Sleeping and Ethnicity

Table 24

Physical Problems: Changes in Eating/Drinking and Ethnicity

Physical problems-Changes in eating and

drinking

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime:

Ethnicity

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 26

Physical Problems: Changes in Eating/Drinking and Ethnicity

100

Table 25

Physical Problems: Upset Stomach and Ethnicity

Physical problems-Upset stomach

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Ethnicity

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 27

Physical Problems: Upset Stomach and Ethnicity

101

Table 26

Physical Problems: Fatigue and Ethnicity

Physical problems: Fatigue

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Ethnicity

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 28

Physical Problems: Fatigue and Ethnicity

102

Table 27

Physical Problems: High Blood Pressure and Ethnicity

Physical problems-High blood pressure

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Ethnicity

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 29

Physical Problems: High Blood Pressure and Ethnicity

103

Table 28

Physical Problems: Muscle Tension and Ethnicity

Physical problems-Muscle tension

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Ethnicity

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 30

Physical Problems: Muscle Tension and Ethnicity

104

Table 29

Physical Problems: Other and Ethnicity

Physical problems-Other

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime:

Ethnicity

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

106

122

Figure 31

Physical Problems: Other and Ethnicity

105

Table 30

Physical Problems: Headaches and Gender

Physical problems-Headaches

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Gender

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 32

Physical Problems: Headaches and Gender

106

Table 31

Physical Problems: Trouble Sleeping and Gender

Physical problems-Trouble sleeping

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Gender

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 33

Physical Problems: Trouble Sleeping and Gender

107

Table 32

Physical Problems: Changes in Eating/Drinking and Gender

Physical problems-Changes in eating and

drinking

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Gender

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 34

Physical Problems: Changes in Eating/Drinking and Gender

108

Table 33

Physical Problems: Upset Stomach and Gender

Physical problems-Upset stomach

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Gender

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 35

Physical Problems: Upset Stomach and Gender

109

Table 34

Physical Problems: Fatigue and Gender

Physical problems-Fatigue

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Gender

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 36

Physical Problems: Fatigue and Gender

110

Table 35

Physical Problems: High Blood Pressure and Gender

Physical problems-High blood pressure

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Gender

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 37

Physical Problems: High Blood Pressure and Gender

111

Table 36

Physical Problems: Muscle Tension and Gender

Physical problems-Muscle tension

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Gender

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

122

Figure 38

Physical Problems: Muscle Tension and Gender

112

Table 37

Physical Problems: Other and Gender

Physical problems-Other

Total

Yes

Residue

Hate crime: Gender

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

106

122

Figure 39

Physical Problems: Other and Gender

113

Problems at School/Work, With Friends, and Professional Help

A crosstabulation was conducted to compare the victim’s responses to the hate

crime causing problems at school, work, or family and friends and whether the stress of

being a victim prompted the participants to seek professional help: N=115 (see Tables 38-

43 and Figures 40-45). Statistics show yes responses to “Was the hate crime related to

race, ethnicity, or gender, and did the crime lead to problems at the job, schoolwork,

boss, co-workers, or peers.?’ The second question related to whether or not the

participants sought professional help. The possible responses included yes, no, don’t

know and residue. The analysis focused on “yes” responses only. When comparing race,

ethnicity and gender and whether the victim received professional help, victims who

reported that the hate crime was related to gender reported the most cases in both

problems at work/professional help (10), and problems with friends/family /professional

help (10 responses, 8.68%). Race and ethnicity both reported 8 cases each.

114

Table 38

Problems at Job/School, Seek Professional Help, and Race

Seek professional help for feelings experienced as

victim of crime

Victim of crime lead to

problems at job, schoolwork,

boss, coworkers, or peers

Total

Yes

Hate crime: Race

Yes

Total

Hate crime: Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

Hate crime: Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

115

Figure 40

Problems at Job/School, Seek Professional Help, and Race

116

Table 39

Problems with Family/Friends, Seek Professional Help, and Race

Seek professional help for feelings

experienced as victim of crime

Victim of crime lead to problems

with family members or friends

Total

Yes

Residue

Yes

Hate crime:

Race

Yes

Total

Hate crime:

Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

Hate crime:

Race

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

115

117

Figure 41

Problems with Family/Friends, Seek Professional Help, and Race

118

Table 40

Problems at Job/School, Seek Professional Help, and Ethnicity

Seek professional help for feelings experienced as

victim of crime

Victim of crime lead to

problems at job,

schoolwork, boss

coworkers, or peers

Total

Yes

Hate crime:

Ethnicity

Yes

Total

Hate crime:

Ethnicity

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

Hate crime:

Ethnicity

Yes

Don’t know

Residue

Total

115

119

Figure 42

Problems at Job/School, Seek Professional Help, and Ethnicity

Students also viewed